A continuation of the previous thread.

Now the tactical difficulty of having different threads open to quote each other will factor in. How do you think the competitors handle it Keith?

Should be stiff competition (no pun intended :lol: )...but isn't this technically Homos vs. Religion thread no. 3?

Wow - I didn't think that there was this much to say on the topic, seeing that it basically boils down to 'Some Christians believe that homosexuality is bad because the Bible says so. Others think differently.'

I mean - there really isn't that much left to debate when one side believes that they have the support of the infallible word of God...

I mean - there really isn't that much left to debate when one side believes that they have the support of the infallible word of God...Exactly. One side is saying "We know we're right" when the other is saying "We know you're wrong" and when the question is asked "How do you know?" both answer something along the lines of "We can't show you."

There is no scientific law based on faith.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Have you ever heard of a theory? It's something that you might believe in that has not been proven. Faith is another term for not being proven, therefore to believe in a theory is to have faith in a theory. And for the record, scientific laws cannot be proven either, they must merely be heavily supported.I'm not talking about theories. And scientific laws can be proven. The sum of two sqared sides of a right angled triangle is equal to the square root of the remaining side. Scientific law and there is no circumstance where this law is incorrect and if it is then you're not using a right angled triangle. A law doesn't mean it's supported, it means there is no room for disagreement and it has been proven beyond any doubt. Since when are fancy ceremonies and a life of abstinance the requirements of a religion?Name me one recognised religion that doesn't have either. So what you're implying is that people cannot be united in the name of ScienceI never implied that at all. I am saying that science will never become a religion since what makes a religion a religion is faith, ceremony and dogma. Science has none. There are some similarities I guess in that all experiments follow a similar structure and that there must be a control group and I guess one could view that as dogma or ceremony but that would be strongly stretching the definition of either word.

scientific laws can be proven. The sum of two sqared sides of a right angled triangle is equal to the square root of the remaining side. That is a mathematical theory, not a scientific law. An example of a scientific law would be the Law of Gravitational Pull. And no, we cannot prove this. We know it's there, but we can never be sure that what we believe is absaloutely correct, so no, it is not proven.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since when are fancy ceremonies and a life of abstinance the requirements of a religion?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Name me one recognised religion that doesn't have either. Does Christianity work for you? I'll let the ceremonies fly, but I do believe God told Adam and Eve in Genesis to "Go forth and be fruitful." So unless being fruitful is an ancient term for humping a table rather than your "siginificant other" so to speak, I'm farirly certain that the Bible is a-ok with scrompin'. For the record, scrompin' is an English idiom which essentially means...NOT BEING ABSTINANT.

but that would be strongly stretching the definition of either word. Yes, it's not like RELIGIONS stretch the definitions of words, do they? Oh, no, of course not. That would be blasphemous.

science will never become a religion since what makes a religion a religion is faith, ceremony and dogma. Science has none. Science has ceremony, which you were kind enough to provide for me. Science has dogma in that it follows a very heavily-reinforced structure that all experimenters are encouraged to follow. And faith...my favorite! Unless I am QUITE mistaken, it's rather impossible to see individual atoms even with the aided eye. So how do we know that they're there? Faith, anyone?

That is a mathematical theory, not a scientific law. An example of a scientific law would be the Law of Gravitational Pull. And no, we cannot prove this. We know it's there, but we can never be sure that what we believe is absaloutely correct, so no, it is not proven.So mathematics isn't science? It's called geometry. Science doesn't just mean test-tubes, white frocks and labs. Sound construction and building principles are a type of science. And it's "The Theory of Gravity" it's neven been claimed to be a law. Does Christianity work for you? I'll let the ceremonies fly, but I do believe God told Adam and Eve in Genesis to "Go forth and be fruitful." So unless being fruitful is an ancient term for humping a table rather than your "siginificant other" so to speak, I'm farirly certain that the Bible is a-ok with scrompin'. For the record, scrompin' is an English idiom which essentially means...NOT BEING ABSTINANT.So the only part of the Bible one should pay attention to is Genesis? And the rest of it describing procedure and doctrine should be completely ignored? I was speaking of abstinance of priesthood, obviously not all members of the religion. The comparison was a scientist also, who I'm certain you would consider the 'priesthood' of science. Yes, it's not like RELIGIONS stretch the definitions of words, do they? Oh, no, of course not. That would be blasphemous.I'm having a hard time dealing with this, was this a sarcastic comment or what? Science has ceremony, which you were kind enough to provide for me. Science has dogma in that it follows a very heavily-reinforced structure that all experimenters are encouraged to follow. And faith...my favorite! Unless I am QUITE mistaken, it's rather impossible to see individual atoms even with the aided eye. So how do we know that they're there? Faith, anyone?Ceremony are a series of unnessisary events/occurances and science has none. Everything done in the name of science has a reason that can be proven to have the desired effect. There's no bowing down and worshiping the Spirit of Invention after the first result recording.
The term dogma is often applied to statements put forward by someone who thinks, inappropriately, that they should be accepted without proof. There is no faith in science, the term is theory and it often has physical and proveable backing yet can't be proven to exist in every possible circumstance.

However, I feel this has little to do with homosexuality and religion since I honestly don't think science can be viewed as a religion since no country recognises it as one.

So mathematics isn't science? It's called geometry No, mathetmatics and science are not the same thing. If they were the same thing, they'd be called by the same name.

And it's "The Theory of Gravity" it's neven been claimed to be a law. Wow, thanks for proving my point! You're saving me a lot of work over here. :rolleyes:

So the only part of the Bible one should pay attention to is Genesis? When did I say this again? I'm really not finding your argument to be creditable when all you can seem to do is try and put words in my mouth, hoping no one notices the fact that you're incapable of actually make a point.

I was speaking of abstinance of priesthood, obviously not all members of the religion. Perhaps if you can't express what you're trying to say properly, you should just stop talking. It would save me the trouble of having to sift through pages of illogically-implied reason.

I'm having a hard time dealing with this, was this a sarcastic comment or what? NO, that COULDN'T be sarcasm!

Ceremony are a series of unnessisary events/occurances and science has none. I doubt that those of this board who believe in God will appreciate your calling their ceremonies unnecessary.

There is no faith in science, the term is theory Last I checked, theories couldn't be proven. And just what is faith again? The belief in something that cannot be proven? Wow, it almost seems as though there is a connection between the two...

However, I feel this has little to do with homosexuality and religion since I honestly don't think science can be viewed as a religion since no country recognises it as one. You're ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, Abomination; something cannot exist unless it's recognized by a major country! (SARCASM) Count me if I'm wrong, but I do believe that most "pagan" religions are not recognized by their appropriate countries as major religions. Does this mean that they don't exist? Nooo...but I've enough of this pointless argument. It's already deviated far from the original thread, and it's apparant that each of us will ignorantly pursue our own beliefs, even though we're both wrong in all likelihood. Back to homosexuality and religion! :D

Of course mathematics is a science. Just like physics is a science and chemistry is a science and geology is a science.

Sure, it's A science. A branch may be part of a tree, but does that mean that a branch is a tree?

First off, Some old business:

Equester:

Conservatism of religion or the corruption of an individual that failed to temper his power with responsibility? You have that all over the secular world. Democrats accuse George W. of the same thing, or the Conservative party of Canada was more than happy to point that out about the Liberals in the last election here in Canada.

AS for Human evolution, by being slower to accept the changes put forth, we can examine them, and see how they benefit humanity in general (as God's children, those who are to benefit from religion). This way, we can be assured that the growth of our faithful will be in a positive manner.

And third, Could you replace fear of knowledge with caution in the face of new ideas? Religion can't just take on every new thing they encounter and willy nilly change the rules every other day...

Clixby:

Remember that Creation was one chapter to discuss a 4 billion year process. This oversimplification was intentional to put the focus on the laws of God and the way we ought to live our lives as opposed to how the earth was created.

AS for persecuting homosexuals, If I'm wrong about God, then I will ceace to exist about the time the evidence is presented, so it won't matter. Further, I don't see it as persecution any more than incarceration is a persecution of criminals. You see Crime as wrong and you don't sustain or support it, I see homosexuality as wrong and do not sustain or support it.

Gallileo's "crime" was offending the pride of the Pope. Pride is one of the seven deadly sins, which the bible is against. Homosexuality is an outright violation of the commandments of God, and as such is not openly embraced by churches that claim to serve Him.

Rational thought is imperative to truly understand the teachings of religion. You have to read carefully to know what you are learning. Otherwise you get that "God Hates Fags" site.

AS for Religion being like training wheels, I view Society as the kid that think's he's too grown up for the training wheels, and falters, or even rides unsafely and pays the price. WE see all over the news where Pride, Wrath, Envy, Gluttony, Sloth, Lust, and Greed are destroying society. Maybe we need to put the training wheels back on and obey the guidance that our father in Heaven gives us...

Also, there were no innocents in Sodom and Gamorah. Those that were innocent were told to flee the city. Likewise, Noah and his sons (along with thier wives) were the only innocents at the time of the great flood, and thus were spared.

BlkDeth:

Interesting idea about Science replacing religion. I do see people more and more turning to Science for answers as opposed to God or His servants. The problem I see is that Science does not concern itself with ethics, adn this I believe will create a tailspin for society in general...

Abomination:

In the records of cities that were destroyed, Prophets were sent to cry repentance unto the people, but they not only refused to repent, but they mocked, tortured and killed brutally those chosen messengers in some cases. The only "crime" was to tell the people that they were wrong, and needed to repent.

BlkDeth (again):

Ceremony is only a small part of religion. It's not that it isn't important, but it's not the biggest thing. In my faith, these ceremonies or ordinances are simple, so that we can put more emphasis on the bigger things like obedience and choosing the best way to live. Some of these ceremonies are more to make certain coming of age events (like baptism, receiving the priesthood, marriage, or other blessings as required) more memorable for the members and to help them to feel the Spirit and know that this is right.

but I do believe God told Adam and Eve in Genesis to "Go forth and be fruitful."The first support of Heterosexuality, and further laws in regards to sex were the bounds within which such being fruitful were to takeplace (between a man and a woman, only in covenent of marriage).

And the rest of it describing procedure and doctrine should be completely ignored?No. Genesis takes the history up as far as Moses, with some of the early law, but it's like the early lessons. As the Bible progresses, the law is added to, up to the birth of Christ. From there, Christ simplifies what's there and begins the things that we ought to do, and Paul elaborates more on the higher law, or the way we ought to live (the Thou Shalt part, as opposed to just the Thou Shalt Not parts).

I was speaking of abstinance of priesthood, obviously not all members of the religion.Actually, that's a false doctrine that's infected some religions. In the New testament, any forbidance of marriage is identified as a false doctrine.

Everything done in the name of science has a reason that can be proven to have the desired effect.Change "can be proven to" to "we have faith that it will" and you have Religion and it's laws and ordinances in a nutshell. We have faith that baptism by immersion will grant a remission od our sins, and that repentance will see our sins forgiven by God.

Last I checked, theories couldn't be proven. And just what is faith again? The belief in something that cannot be proven? Wow, it almost seems as though there is a connection between the two...It boils down to a point where you have to say that "It just is, live with it." The difference between religion and Science is on where that point is...

And it's "The Theory of Gravity" it's neven been claimed to be a law. Wow, thanks for proving my point! You're saving me a lot of work over here.Um - what point did he prove? Did he prove it to anyone but you, or were we all meant to have been enlightened by this 'proof'?

I doubt that those of this board who believe in God will appreciate your calling their ceremonies unnecessary.The fact remains...

Last I checked, theories couldn't be proven. And just what is faith again? The belief in something that cannot be proven? Wow, it almost seems as though there is a connection between the two...That is not what I'd define faith as at all. I would say it is 'the irrational belief in the improbable'. The thing about science is that it seeks for rational beliefs and tries to make it less probable that they're incorrect. A well supported theory achieves this.
Now, if someone was believing a hypothesis that they pulled out of their arse (say, sounds familiar...), then it would be a matter of faith.

I doubt that those of this board who believe in God will appreciate your calling their ceremonies unnecessary. dosn't mather, they still cant prove does ceremonies to have any effect.

Science has no ceremonies, which makes it diferent then religion.

Secondly you seem to confuse Theory and law.

A scientific law, as the one abomination quotes, can be proven to allways apply and hold true.

a Scientific Theory, is an idea of what most likely happends based on the evidence, such as the theory of gravety, which is a theory of how much power the earth amplies to a body. its broadly based on experiements showing that mather weighing the same, is subduede to en equal force when falling.
While its not proven its the idea that makes most sence at the moment and let us explain a lot more.
Should proof rise for something completely different, the theory will be discarded. that is again something you dont find in religions, they dont work with theories at all. only divine law.

As regarding math, math is a tool of most nature based scince's and a science in it self. as a tool you use the laws provided from math, as a science you try to either prove mathematical theories or theorise yourself.
as it is with most science.

but I do believe God told Adam and Eve in Genesis to "Go forth and be fruitful."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The first support of Heterosexuality, and further laws in regards to sex were the bounds within which such being fruitful were to takeplace (between a man and a woman, only in covenent of marriage).
First support of heterosexuality? I'd dare say he's just saying to go have kids because they've got ALOT of catching up to do. As for supporting heterosexuality are you implying that the only thing humans should do is have children and if they're not having children then they shouldn't be doing whatever they're doing? Because that's the only way you can view the statement to go forth and be fruitful as anti-homosexual. I was speaking of abstinance of priesthood, obviously not all members of the religion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually, that's a false doctrine that's infected some religions. In the New testament, any forbidance of marriage is identified as a false doctrine.Oh, like the Catholic Church that just happens to be the largest Christian branch? Strange that we should listen to a religion that can't even agree with itself, let alone anyone else. So the only part of the Bible one should pay attention to is Genesis?
-------
When did I say this again? I'm really not finding your argument to be creditable when all you can seem to do is try and put words in my mouthI was talking about how you referred to Genesis as the only basis of your argument. Because after Genesis there are countless times where people are told to abstain from sexual intercourse, especially people of the cloth. "Go forth a be fruitful" means to actually only have sex with somebody you're married to, big problem if you're too damn ugly to get married or something. And I've heard countless reports that having kiddies is God's big plan and if you don't do that then you're sinning or some such. Sure, it's A science. A branch may be part of a tree, but does that mean that a branch is a tree?If we were talking about trees, then you'd be right. But mathmatics is the basis of science and there are many schools of scientific thought. Medicine isn't called science but it is a science that is derrived from biology and chemistry.

The bearing this has on homosexuality is apparent that "science" (studies/surveys/tests etc.) shows homosexuality to have no negative impacts on society. All claims made that it has a negative effect have no solid backing short of the 'other people will ridicule them' argument but that's the same as making cars illegal because 'people will steal them'.

Remember that Creation was one chapter to discuss a 4 billion year process. This oversimplification was intentional to put the focus on the laws of God and the way we ought to live our lives as opposed to how the earth was created. But if God is omnipotent, He would have been able to create the Universe in seven days, wouldn't he? After all, you said:

Has it ever occured to you that the Creator of the World and everything on it would know all the tricks to manipulate it? So why couldn't he do all the stuff in Genesis the way it was written?

You still haven't told me why dinosaurs aren't in the Bible, or how two people could create a genetically diverse species that occupies nearly all corners of the Earth. Isn't incest a sin?

AS for persecuting homosexuals, If I'm wrong about God, then I will ceace to exist about the time the evidence is presented, so it won't matter. Further, I don't see it as persecution any more than incarceration is a persecution of criminals. You see Crime as wrong and you don't sustain or support it, I see homosexuality as wrong and do not sustain or support it. #1: I'm sorry, but it's persecution. You're supporting the ostracisation and condemnation of people who have only stood up and asked to be counted. I don't see how "Well, even if God doesn't exist it won't matter to me since I'll be dead" justifies this. It matters to the people who are forced to live in mosery thanks to people who think your way. Oh, but they deserve it, don't they? For not doing things the way YOU want.

#2: Crime involves harm being done to someone. It seems to bear repeating, but homosexuality doesn't harm anyone. It's between two consenting adults.But good job trying to create a comparison between homosexuality and crime, champ.

AS for Religion being like training wheels, I view Society as the kid that think's he's too grown up for the training wheels, and falters, or even rides unsafely and pays the price. WE see all over the news where Pride, Wrath, Envy, Gluttony, Sloth, Lust, and Greed are destroying society. Maybe we need to put the training wheels back on and obey the guidance that our father in Heaven gives us...Yes, a fully Christian society would be absolutely perfect in every way! I mean, look at Victorian England! Everyone back then was Christian, and it was all just dandy! No crime, corruption, thievery, rape, murder, or deviancy then, no sir!

:sigh: You've siccessfully pulled me back in again. I've given up on this discussion more times than I can count, but you guys keep pulling me back in.

ok, here goes:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since when are fancy ceremonies and a life of abstinance the requirements of a religion?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Name me one recognised religion that doesn't have either. BlckDeth got it right on the 'multiplying' part, and abstinance is not preached in the Bible for life, only before marriage. On top of that, most protestant religions aren't very big on cerimony. The Baptists believe communion and baptism are the only 'cerimonies' set up by God, and neither is stricly required. Marriage is a union of a man and a woman under God, but no ceremony is strictly required to instate it. 'Church Services' aren't so much a ceremony as a standard pattern of events things have fallen into.

@Aldeth:
So mathematics isn't science? It's called geometry. Science doesn't just mean test-tubes, white frocks and labs. Sound construction and building principles are a type of science. And it's "The Theory of Gravity" it's neven been claimed to be a law. No, math isn't a science. They are two seperate disciplines. Math is closer to logical studies than to science. Sound construction is called engineering, not science. The principles are science, yes, but the application is engineering.

So the only part of the Bible one should pay attention to is Genesis? And the rest of it describing procedure and doctrine should be completely ignored? I was speaking of abstinance of priesthood, obviously not all members of the religion. The Bible doesn't define abstinance for priests anywhere, that's Catholic tradition. The Bible's rituals and ceremonies are almost all Old Testament, meaning they were enacted because God wasn't with the people directly. Now that He is, they're all moot.

Ceremony are a series of unnessisary events/occurances and science has none. Everything done in the name of science has a reason that can be proven to have the desired effect. There's no bowing down and worshiping the Spirit of Invention after the first result recording.
Maybe not, but a lot of scientific theories are taken as fact by the common populace simply because they don't know better. Examples: Gravity, Evolution, Einstein's Theories of Relativity, etc. This ammounts to a religion in many senses. While the scientists may not be considered members, and I wouldn't hold them to blame for it either, it is a recorded phenomenon nonetheless.

@Aikanaro:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I doubt that those of this board who believe in God will appreciate your calling their ceremonies unnecessary.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The fact remains...
Yes, the fact remains that it wasn't a fact, but a belief, that was cited.

That is not what I'd define faith as at all. I would say it is 'the irrational belief in the improbable'. Then you're using a different term than we are. Both the Bible and the English dictionary define faith as a belief in something that cannot be proven by rational or empyrical evidence. The belief in question does not even have to be improbable, and you're use of irrational leaves your exact meaning here in question, so I'd say you may need to revise your definition.

@Equester:
A scientific law, as the one abomination quotes, can be proven to allways apply and hold true This is probably one of the most basic mistakes you can make in science. NO! THAT'S WRONG! In science NOTHING CAN EVER BE PROVEN ABSOLUTELY! You CANNOT TEST A LAW UNDER EVERY POSSIBLE CIRCUMSTANCE! A scientific law is one that has generally been proven true and is accepted by the modern scientific community.

@Abomination
Because after Genesis there are countless times where people are told to abstain from sexual intercourse, especially people of the cloth. Only for short periods of time, never for life.

Medicine isn't called science but it is a science that is derrived from biology and chemistry. No it isn't. Medicine, like engineering, is the application of science. There's a lot of biology and chemistry involved in medicine, yes, but there's a lot of physics and chemistry involved in engineering, it still isn't a science.

Math is a science...so sayeth the wise Webster.

Maybe not, but a lot of scientific theories are taken as fact by the common populace simply because they don't know better. Examples: Gravity, Evolution, Einstein's Theories of Relativity, etc. This ammounts to a religion in many senses. While the scientists may not be considered members, and I wouldn't hold them to blame for it either, it is a recorded phenomenon nonetheless. Well unless you start screwing up the definition of religion (or the one I was taught) it can't be a religion. I was taught that religion was belief in some transcended being or principle. I don't see anything like that in science.

Scientific theories are built very differently from religious ones. Scientific theories have to be proven and there needs to be a method of proving them wrong. You can't prove something like religion to be wrong but there is not a single scientific theory which is completely infallable to falsification. There is allways an X factor that has not been solved and therefore it is possible that a rivalling theory scraps these and becomes the new defaultly adapted theory.

Laws are a different matter, they are complete meaning that they work under all scientific circumstances. They basically can't be challenged under the current structure of science. Of course they are not absolute truths since some kind of a scientific revolution which will change science as we know it, is allways a possibility but discussing absolute truths will get us nowhere so we'll have to settle with that which has the most solid base of proof.

Science is dynamic. As soon as a theory is generated and accepted as an accurate model of reality, science immediately goes about the business of trying to prove it wrong or refine it.

Religion is static. It's tenets are unyielding, not open to testing and in fact largely untestable.*** Unfortuantely, the Bible is very clear as to God's view of homosexuality; it is an abomination...and so christians deem it so, there is no chance of them refining this viewpoint.

Statements which equate science with religion in any way that matters are innacurate.

***I am aware of such "evidence" as an explanation of how the sea could part for Moses and his posse through a natural happenstance and how Jesus might have walked on water because the lake happened to be frozen or how there was enough water in the early atmosphere to cause the great flood etc. etc. Respectfully, I find these to be silly beyond belief. Why evoke natural phenomena to explain what the Bible describes as divine occurences?

Thank you NOG, for informing the others that nothing is proven in Science. And here I was starting to think that I was the only one here who had ever bothered to pick up a Science textbook, too...

god and jesus love homosexuals regardless. Stop arguing guys

PS, there were a couple things said above that were so devoid of sentient life that I felt as though I simply must cease ignoring them and post a rebuttal, against my better judgement.

Um - what point did he prove? Did he prove it to anyone but you, or were we all meant to have been enlightened by this 'proof'? Yes, he proved my point in how he corrected Gravity, to in fact, be a theory, which has even less evidence than a law is shown to have.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure, it's A science. A branch may be part of a tree, but does that mean that a branch is a tree?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If we were talking about trees, then you'd be right. But mathmatics is the basis of science and there are many schools of scientific thought. Medicine isn't called science but it is a science that is derrived from biology and chemistry. :lol: I'm not quite sure that you fully grasp the concept of exactly what I mean when I say "branch." I'll try to put this in the simplest way possible: It. Is. A. Metaphor. I thought it should be obvious that I am not literally talking about trees, but I see that I am wrong in this case.

@Equester:
I will let everything you said slide on the basis that English is obviously not your first language. But in response, I should make it clear that, no I did not confuse the terms "theory and law," Science does have ceremonies, we can't prove that ceremonies don't have any effect either, and finally, no, contrary to popular belief, scientific law cannot be proven due to its generally unobservable and relatively abstract nature. Lastly, it should be noted that theories are rarely discarded. Typically, they are modified. Yet you claim this is very different from religious views. How? Religious beliefs are often modified, yet are rarely, if never thrown out. Don't believe me? Try looking at every different interpretation of the bible, and attempt to find two that are exactly alike in nature. So I guess what I am asking is, where's the difference?

blackdeath by your logic chemistry is not a science either :(

Sorry if you misunderstood me, Negro Stan. If you'll read my previous posts, you'll note that I emphasize that branches of Science such as Chemistry, Math, Biology, Physics, and many others, are in fact branches off the main body of Science, but not actually Science as a whole. Science as a whole is very far-reaching, while Chemistry, one of its extensions, is not. Science includes Biology, Physics, and Nuclear engineering, to name a few, but the same cannot be said of a single branch of Science such as Chemisty. Do you see what I'm saying?

okay, this is just getting silly. Time for a Sociology student to step in:

There are two ways you can define religion. Functionally, and substantially. Defining religion functionally means you define it by what it does, i.e giving people a higher being/reality to believe in. A substantial definition is what it is; so, substantially, a religion is a set of supernatural beliefs. Depending on how you define it, what counts as religion changes. substantially and functionally science falls short of being a religion.

Alternatively, you can use Ninian Smart's (don't laugh) 6 dimensions of religion: Ritual, Myth, Doctrine, Ethics, Social, and Experiential. Science lacks all of these. Rules do not count as doctrine or ritual.

Science fails to be classified for several reasons whichever way you look at it:

- It does not engender faith in the supernatural. Science is looking at the facts and making a logical conclusion.
- It doesn't have a single set of doctrine/dogma (for example, physicists do not follow the same rules as biologists relating to their area of work)
- There is no mythology (yes, there is spoeculation and prediction based on current evidence, but that is by no means mythology)

And I never said that science will replace religion. I just said that religion will lose all social significance in the wake of rationality and logic. Basically, secular humanism will become the norm.

Oh yeah, and I love how Gnarrflinger managed to prove one of my statements right in his rebuttal to that specific statement. I said:
However, some people are behind the curve and desperately want to keep themselves in the comfort of blind faith to an invisible, intangible God. And his reply contained this gem:
Maybe we need to put the training wheels back on and obey the guidance that our father in Heaven gives us...
QED.

Alternatively, you can use Ninian Smart's (don't laugh) 6 dimensions of religion: Ritual, Myth, Doctrine, Ethics, Social, and Experiential. Science lacks all of these. Rules do not count as doctrine or ritual.Nice - I was just about to bring that in (though it's actually the seven dimonsions - you left out Material).

Now onto my definition of faith. NOG, I think that you're right - my definition of faith needs to be revised. Not because what I have as it at the moment is especially wrong (that does seem to be the way in which it is used in a religious context, regardless of how you dress it up), but because I have a more succinct way of putting it.

'Faith is belief not based on evidence.'

Which is quite close to the dictionary definition (changing 'proof' to 'evidence' - seeing that using the dictionary definition as-is would indeed lead to the totally absurd idea of science being a form of faith).

any mathematic law, is proven, else its theory, get the difinition right. and math is a form a science, just like chemistry, physics, biology and so forth. there is no disciplin just called science, its a term broadly used to describe any disciplin that relise on logic and proof, to the determin its teachings.

the mathematical laws holds true in any circumstance, else it isn't a law. oh and NOG, you dont test a law, you prove it generally true math. learn how science work boys then we can discusse it. until then, stick to you bibles and your pi = 3.00

Yes, he proved my point in how he corrected Gravity, to in fact, be a theory, which has even less evidence than a law is shown to have.
you still havent grasped the 3 aspects have you?.

A law, something that is proven to hold in all circumstances. the laws of geometry holds for all figures they describe.

A theory. is an idea of a law, based un well documented data, which continually will be questioned and tested, to either proof or discard. the theory of gravety seems to hold true in all cases, but it cant be proofed, hence its still called a theory and will be discarded should a better model to discribe what happends be found.

a hypothesis is an idea pulled out of nothing, it has no evidence or data to back it up and while it migth explain something it does it with no cridibility or proof. Gods falls under this, powerfull creatures that somehow controll human life.

so a theory, unlike the hypothesis, is backed up by evidence. you dont have to believe in gravity, you can feel its there, if not, try jumping :)

[ December 05, 2006, 12:29: Message edited by: Equester ]

Ok, just because it bugs me, let me say this again. Math is not a science. You don't experiment in math, you don't test theories (except as an exercise for the reader), and there are absolute proofs. Math is purely a conceptual construct, science is not. Technically, hard science is divided into Chemistry, Biology, Newtonian Physics, and Quantum Physics. These are all interconnected, though those connections are not well understood in all areas. There is a big push on for something called Unification Theory, which would indeed unite all these under one 'doctrine'.

As for the value of religion, well, really there's nothing to be said here. Not because it is self-evident, but rather because we don't empyrically know. Would society fall apart without religion? The U.S.S.R didn't fare very well, and that was with only the opression of religion, but maybe other things are to blame. You know, like tyrranical mad-men ruling the country, spending all its resources on a military competition with the US, etc. Will society fall apart if religion continues? I doubt it, we've had it for millenia and it hasn't happened yet. In the end, you can't prove religion is bad or has any negative effect on society as a whole.

Let me say this again: of course maths is a science. And there are far more sciences than just chemistry, biology, and physics! A paleantologist would beat you up with an apatosaurus bone for saying he's not a scientist. A geologist would throw a rock at you and an astronomer would burn you like an ant with his telescope.

Holy off topic, Batman.

HB, those are all sub-sections of these main topics. Astronomy is primarily concerend with newtonian physics (which can include relativistic physics). Geology is primarily chemistry, as is paleantology (which strickly speaking isn't a hard science).

mathematics: the group of *SCIENCES* (including arithmetic, geometry, algebra, calculus, etc.) dealing with quantities, magnitudes, and forms and their relationships, attributes, etc., by the use of numbers and symbols 2. the act or process of using any of these *SCIENCES*; computation

from: "Websters New World College Dictionary - Fourth Edition"

CASE CLOSED. BACK TO TOPIC. TOOT-SWEET.

@Clixby:
Way to close the topic in a hurried attempt to keep anyone else from making a rebuttal to your points. PS, being a scientology student doesn't necessarily make you right. It means that you're still studying, and that your opinion really has no more credibility than the rest of ours unless you actually back it up, rather than stating your creditentials. ON TOPIC!!!

Oh, like the Catholic Church that just happens to be the largest Christian branch? Strange that we should listen to a religion that can't even agree with itself, let alone anyone else.Yeah, but I wasn't sure I wanted to go there. I'm not looking to go out and attack other faiths. The point is on homosexuality and religion...

"Go forth a be fruitful" means to actually only have sex with somebody you're married to, big problem if you're too damn ugly to get married or something. And I've heard countless reports that having kiddies is God's big plan and if you don't do that then you're sinning or some such.Actually, a better call would be that we are here to procreate, but we have to do so within reason, for we are also responsible for the education and support of offspring that we sire. If a family is not confident that they can provide for another child, then don't get in their face if they use birth control or get a vasectomy to prevent this situation. We are also not accountable if the ability to reproduce is not given to us or is lost for some reason (like those that are naturally sterile)...

But if God is omnipotent, He would have been able to create the Universe in seven days, wouldn't he? After all, you said:

quote:Has it ever occured to you that the Creator of the World and everything on it would know all the tricks to manipulate it?

So why couldn't he do all the stuff in Genesis the way it was written?

You still haven't told me why dinosaurs aren't in the Bible, or how two people could create a genetically diverse species that occupies nearly all corners of the Earth. Isn't incest a sin?
First, God still has to abide by natural laws that he set forth to form the bounds for which all things exist. Many of those laws, your science is finding, but amny are only called theories...

Secondly, This information was given to a prophet 3500 years ago. I don't think he could record all those details.

Third, you've ignored my point that creation is not the issue, but ethics and how we ought to live.

Fourth, I am not God, so I DON'T have all those answers.

Fifth, AS long as science ignores God, any extrapolations based on the assumption that God does not exist could be flawed. I will assume that they are for the time being...

You're supporting the ostracisation and condemnation of people who have only stood up and asked to be counted.To be counted and accepted for those offences which we consider unacceptable and intolerable.

It matters to the people who are forced to live in mosery thanks to people who think your way. Oh, but they deserve it, don't they? For not doing things the way YOU want.I didn't write it, I just follow it. Your issue is with God. The promise is that we do things God's way, there is joy. There is misery in defying God's law. They want to avoid the misery but not abide by God's law. It doesn't work that way...

Crime involves harm being done to someone.Sorry, I'm not buying that. Crime is a violation of the law of the land. Marijuana, when used responsibly, only harms the user. By your logic, marijuana use is not a crime. In most countries, that is not the case. Arguement fails. QED.

It seems to bear repeating, but homosexuality doesn't harm anyone. It's between two consenting adults.Marijuana smoke only harms the one who uses is (and even that has been questioned), but it is a crime, therefore Crime is a violation of the law, regardless of harm.

But good job trying to create a comparison between homosexuality and crime, champ.Since Crime is a violation of the law of the land, and Sin is a violation of the law of God, teh comparison holds. Harm is not the point. Impaired driving only hurts people if the driver gets in an accident, but even if there is no accident, it is illegal (as it should be). The consequence of Crime is incarceration (or other legal sanction). Sin carries it's own consequences, ranging from guilt and misery, religious sanctions like the withholding of fellowship (shunning) or outright exclusion (excommunication) and potentially eternal punishment (such as damnation).

Yes, a fully Christian society would be absolutely perfect in every way! I mean, look at Victorian England! Everyone back then was Christian, and it was all just dandy! No crime, corruption, thievery, rape, murder, or deviancy then, no sir!You are assuming that people would obey the laws they claimed to believe in. Nobody's perfect. There are still going to be criminals and other sinners. I'd hold up the early Mormon settlements in Utah as a different example. Basically one religion was prominent, and there was little sin because everyone was too busy working to see to the welfare of others.

Religion is static. It's tenets are unyielding, not open to testing and in fact largely untestable.*** Unfortuantely, the Bible is very clear as to God's view of homosexuality; it is an abomination...and so christians deem it so, there is no chance of them refining this viewpointYou talk like that's a bad thing? I don't think it's bad at all. Religion asks a degree of conformity among it's followers, just as the state, a school or an employer can request a degree of conformity from their people/students/employees. What's the difference?

god and jesus love homosexuals regardless. Stop arguing guysThat he does, but he still never said it was acceptable. It does however state that if we love God, we will keep his commandments, including the forbiddance of homosexuality.

Oh yeah, and I love how Gnarrflinger managed to prove one of my statements right in his rebuttal to that specific statement. I said:

quote:However, some people are behind the curve and desperately want to keep themselves in the comfort of blind faith to an invisible, intangible God.

And his reply contained this gem:

quote:Maybe we need to put the training wheels back on and obey the guidance that our father in Heaven gives us...

QED.Actually, I think that Society should not forsake God. It's not that we are behind the curve, but that we know that we shouldn't be popping wheelies or should look both ways before crossing the street like we were told when we were given the bikes. Riding them safely means that we obey these counsels rather than disregarding them and popping wheelies, jumping over things and blindly riding out into traffic...

Rather than just assuming that we know better, why not simply obey the laws that we've been given and see what happens to those that don't...

PS, being a scientology student doesn't necessarily make you right.Good point, but I thought he was a sociology student...

Time for a new thread on the science and religion thing, Abomination beat me to starting it myself:

http://www.sorcerers.net/ubb/ultimatebb.php?/topic/20/1679.html

Sorry, I'm not buying that. Crime is a violation of the law of the land. Marijuana, when used responsibly, only harms the user. By your logic, marijuana use is not a crime. In most countries, that is not the case. Arguement fails. If marijuana hurts the user, so it does hurt somebody, hurrah for logic huh.
Homosexuality dosn't hurt the homosexual or anybody else.

So marijuana, suicide amd other stuff that hurts the person who does it, even though its selfinflicted are banned because of that.

Marijuana is often debated, because the harm, dosn't seem much bigger the alcohol. (just to counter whatever silly arguments that could rise over marijuana being legal some places)

Marajuana doesn't neccessarily hurt the user. Actually, cocaine in its natural form is safe, non-addictive, and only produces a moderate increase in energy (usually expressed as stamina). It is the purrified form that is dangerous, but I promise you the DEA would not look kindly on your safe use of cocaine or marajuana.

If marijuana hurts the user, so it does hurt somebody, hurrah for logic huh.
Homosexuality dosn't hurt the homosexual or anybody else.NOG beat me to the part about Marijuana not being that harmful. I've even heard that Marijuana can be beneficial. It reduced the frequency and severity of the symptoms of my Tourette Syndrome when I used to smoke it.

My point was not about harm, but about a violation of law. There are probably many things that cause no harm, but are against the law. Those things are crimes.

First, God still has to abide by natural laws that he set forth to form the bounds for which all things exist. Many of those laws, your science is finding, but many are only called theories... So, you're saying God isn't omnipotent? That's a turn-up for the records.

Secondly, This information was given to a prophet 3500 years ago. I don't think he could record all those details. But couldn't he have told us everything we needed to know about our world? Imagine how quickly we would have advanced with perfect knowledge of medicine and agriculture, and whatnot. Yet all He decides to do is throw down a bunch of anal rules and keep sitting on his throne up there.

Third, you've ignored my point that creation is not the issue, but ethics and how we ought to live. Why would I want to follow the ethical rules put forth in a book full of contradiction and fallacy? That's the point I'm making. Actually, I'm not too worried about most of the ethics in the Bible, since it's mostly "love they neighbour", which is all good whatever way you look at it, but I refuse to accept "Gays should be persecuted 'cause they're miserable sinners".

Fourth, I am not God, so I DON'T have all those answers. So, if it doesn't make any sense whatsoever, then it's God's doing once again. You'd think He'd try to a bit more clear in the holy text He handed down to humanity, wouldn't he?

Fifth, AS long as science ignores God, any extrapolations based on the assumption that God does not exist could be flawed. I will assume that they are for the time being. God is irrelevant to science. You can have a Christian scientist, you know. It's just that findings in sciencehave shown that both the Noah's Ark story and pretty much all of Genesis are a big heap of baloney, something which you were disagreeing with. So at least try to back up your argument before giving up and moving onto a new argumental topic.

o be counted and accepted for those offences which we consider unacceptable and intolerable. For something which YOU consider unnacceptable. We're just fine with it.

I didn't write it, I just follow it. Your issue is with God. The promise is that we do things God's way, there is joy. There is misery in defying God's law. They want to avoid the misery but not abide by God's law. It doesn't work that way...
The promise of every chruch, denomination, sect and cult is that if you do things their way, you'll be happy. Why is Christianity any different? And there you go again with the "gays are miserable" crap again. People are actually capable of living their lives without your morals and being happy.

You are assuming that people would obey the laws they claimed to believe in. Nobody's perfect. There are still going to be criminals and other sinners. I'd hold up the early Mormon settlements in Utah as a different example. Basically one religion was prominent, and there was little sin because everyone was too busy working to see to the welfare of others. I was being sarcastic.

You talk like that's a bad thing? I don't think it's bad at all. Religion asks a degree of conformity among it's followers, just as the state, a school or an employer can request a degree of conformity from their people/students/employees. What's the difference?
Cultural stagnation leads to misery and a loss of values.

Actually, I think that Society should not forsake God. It's not that we are behind the curve, but that we know that we shouldn't be popping wheelies or should look both ways before crossing the street like we were told when we were given the bikes. Riding them safely means that we obey these counsels rather than disregarding them and popping wheelies, jumping over things and blindly riding out into traffic...

Rather than just assuming that we know better, why not simply obey the laws that we've been given and see what happens to those that don't... Thta's just taking the metaphor WAY too far. Society changes, and so do people. You can't expect everything to be the same forever, no matter how much people like you want it to.

Damn. Mega-post. Sorry about that.

Rather than just assuming that we know better, why not simply obey the laws that we've been given and see what happens to those that don't... because that is basing your intire life on blind faith...oh some dude said i should do so 3500years ago, i have no reason to do so other then his word on it that he got it from an all powerfull god, who apperently is so all powerfull that he has to follow the laws of physic First, God still has to abide by natural laws that he set forth to form the bounds for which all things exist. Many of those laws, your science is finding, but amny are only called theories...
...well that clearly makes scence :rolleyes:

i meen anything in the bible boils down to a fictive person, telling you to do so, because he says so. thats not even answers, thats silly orders from a fictive fatherperson.
Sorry but obaying such a silly thing on everything in life, without asking why, seems to me like an easy way to push away responsebility.

I meen no mather what you do, you can allways hide behind the bible and say, god told me its true and i should do so.
and if anybody push the question, onto why does god says so. your allways left witht he unsatisfieigng answer "you cant undestand god, but clearly he ment the best for us" or "its the will of god". Neither of them is forfilling my need for knowdledge. and then there is the ultimate answer "trust in god" where is must ask, why? he has so far given me no reason to trust him, hell he has given me no reason to believe he excist, so why oh why should i follow the laws of the bible.

So, you're saying God isn't omnipotent? That's a turn-up for the records.But would God hold credibility if he set forth his laws then broke them at whim because he could?

But couldn't he have told us everything we needed to know about our world? Imagine how quickly we would have advanced with perfect knowledge of medicine and agriculture, and whatnot. Yet all He decides to do is throw down a bunch of anal rules and keep sitting on his throne up there.Actually as far as teh mandate of Religion goes, he did. Even if he did tell us everything, would it be accepted?

"Gays should be persecuted 'cause they're miserable sinners".You're mistaking me for Pat Robertson again. The Bible simply says that having sex with one of your own gender is an abomination, a grievous sin against the Lord.

So, if it doesn't make any sense whatsoever, then it's God's doing once again. You'd think He'd try to a bit more clear in the holy text He handed down to humanity, wouldn't he?Moses simply witnessed teh red sea parting to allow the Lord's people out of Egypt. He was too busy running from the Pharoah's troops to ask questions. It would be like me asking you, an identified sociologist detailed questions about quantum physics and calling you an idiot when you don't know.

pretty much all of Genesis are a big heap of baloneyI've heard from both sides on that issue. I'm not an expert in science so I won't comment on the science half of it. I'm just working off the logic side of the arguement. If your premise is wrong then the findings are not guaranteed accuracy. If approached from the assumption that religion is baloney (and some do make that assumption), then if it is right, their findings may be questioned. Like it or not, scientists are human, and are prone to have some pre-conceived notions slip through and influence the results of their studies...

For something which YOU consider unnacceptable. We're just fine with it.But if you are pushing that in our face, then there's a problem. That's why I want seperate terms. Seperate church and state or risk electing a theocracy to protect the religious values...

The promise of every chruch, denomination, sect and cult is that if you do things their way, you'll be happy. Why is Christianity any different? And there you go again with the "gays are miserable" crap again. People are actually capable of living their lives without your morals and being happy.Then waht about the studies linking higher rates of depression and suicide to homosexuality? Further, how many parents out there are happy with their decision to reproduce? How many married couples out there are happy with the decision to marry? They followed God's plan and are happy. How about those that rejected God's plan?

Cultural stagnation leads to misery and a loss of values.This is not stagnation. If this was the case, I'd be excommunicated for using the internet, or it would be a scandal for me to have running water in my house or electricity in my home, let alone a TV, X-box or computer...

Thta's just taking the metaphor WAY too far. Society changes, and so do people. You can't expect everything to be the same forever, no matter how much people like you want it to.
Yeah, I've seen your society change. STD's run rampant like a plague because people care more for a moment's pleasure than their own or other's long term well being, people do as they please with little to no regard for the desires of others because they are not taught to give a damn about anyone but themselves. Why to people steal? To get what they want without having to work for it. This is the work and glory of your secular humanism, which exalts the human above God. The problem is that everyone wants to exalt themselves, and it betters nobody. If you enjoy wallowing in this, then by all means, do so. I hope that you are as happy as a pig in his own manure. I on the other hand am holding out hope for a better society, where we develop our sense of fulfillment by doing God's will, and in doing so, improve the world for all...

because that is basing your intire life on blind faithAgain, it's not blind faith. I go in with my eyes open, and see the deterioration in the world around me...

i have no reason to do so other then his word on it that he got it from an all powerfull godAgain, if you truly look for it, the logic in the doctrine is very consistent. Man is that they may have joy. Joy being long term happiness as opposed to a string of fleeting moments of pleasure. Don't look at religion as arbitrary rules, but as a guidepost to this joy. I'm happier now that I'm not getting drunk regularly or smoking weed. I feel better about myself now that I no longer feel as much pressure to have sex outside of marriage. Following the Bible can bring happiness above and beyond any fleeting pleasure that sin can yield.

Sorry but obaying such a silly thing on everything in life, without asking why, seems to me like an easy way to push away responsebility.Ironically, we ARE accountable for everything we do. We have more accountability than most people express in their daily lives...

Neither of them is forfilling my need for knowdledge. and then there is the ultimate answer "trust in god" where is must ask, why? he has so far given me no reason to trust him, hell he has given me no reason to believe he excist, so why oh why should i follow the laws of the bible.The reason my answers are unsatisfactory is because you don't see them from the perspective of the believer. If you look down from a soap box and believe yourself above the faithful, then what they do will make no sense to you. But if you actually read the bible, and seek to obey and prayerfully follow it's counsels, you see it fromt he perspective it was meant to be read from--that of someone working out their own salvation.

But would God hold credibility if he set forth his laws then broke them at whim because he could?If He is all powerful and is the divine creator of the universe I don't think He could give two monkeys if we don't think He's credible or not. The question about the omnipotent issue is that it's used as an argument to prove God's divine hand in things but then we're hearing that He isn't omnipotent. He either is or He isn't. Actually as far as teh mandate of Religion goes, he did. Even if he did tell us everything, would it be accepted?And the mandate of religion has been proven to be wrong. If Genesis is the mandate then God got it wrong, the world wasn't created in 7 days, it's far older than claimed and there were never only two humans. As for if it would be accepted or not, I'm certain it would be, provided God would get off His arse and prove He exists. The Bible simply says that having sex with one of your own gender is an abomination, a grievous sin against the Lord.So why try to stop them from getting married or lay claim to the word marriage? The Bible calls homosexuality an abomination but it doesn't say that you should persecute homosexuals. Just because somebody sins in one area doesn't mean they will fail in another. It would be like me asking you, an identified sociologist detailed questions about quantum physics and calling you an idiot when you don't know.Not quite, since Quantum Physics isn't a person/entity that claims to know everything. As for Moses being too busy running then how can we trust anything that is written down? Like it or not, scientists are human, and are prone to have some pre-conceived notions slip through and influence the results of their studies...Certainly there could be a few scientists with pre-conceived notions yet there is so much evidence indicating that Genesis is a load of hoo-hah that it would be almost statisically impossible that all of those researchers had pre-conceived notions. But if you are pushing that in our face, then there's a problem. That's why I want seperate terms. Seperate church and state or risk electing a theocracy to protect the religious values...1. Nobody is pushing anything in your face. Somebody wanting to live their life, their way, has NOTHING to do with you. I still can't believe this argument is being used that they're pushing their abomniable, immoral, sinful lifestyle in your face when it is anything but.
2. Religious values don't need protection. Unless you want to force YOUR religious values upon people who don't follow your religion would there be any need to protect those values. That is not the case and the only people who have religious values are RELIGIOUS PEOPLE. How is a homosexual adopting/having a child or getting married an attack on somebody else's religious values? It just makes no sense. The values are held by the religious person, not the homosexual, if the homosexual does this thing that the religious person consideres a sin then the religious person WILL STILL CONSIDER IT A SIN. You can still call it a sin all you damn well please, just don't try and stop people from sinning when they don't harm anybody else in the process.
3. Theocracy? I'm certain that'll be the most democratic nation on the planet. Then waht about the studies linking higher rates of depression and suicide to homosexuality? Further, how many parents out there are happy with their decision to reproduce? How many married couples out there are happy with the decision to marry? They followed God's plan and are happy. How about those that rejected God's plan?There are happy homosexuals and unhappy parents/married couples. The cause for their unhappiness/happiness doesn't always have something to do with accepting God or whatever. The lead cause of homosexual suicide was the persecution and rejection they faced from society for being homosexual. The homosexual lifestyle is actually the most happy lifestyle they could possibly have had, it was that they were treated so poorly by society that made them want to top themselves - imagine your own family turning its back on you, your parents ashamed to call you their child etc. THAT is what made these people miserable, not the fact they don't follow God. This is not stagnation. If this was the case, I'd be excommunicated for using the internet, or it would be a scandal for me to have running water in my house or electricity in my home, let alone a TV, X-box or computer...He's not talking about technological stagnation, he's talking about not allowing morals or values to change over time as new ideas/situations develop. Yeah, I've seen your society change. STD's run rampant like a plague because people care more for a moment's pleasure than their own or other's long term well being, people do as they please with little to no regard for the desires of others because they are not taught to give a damn about anyone but themselves.If I remember correctly STDs aren't running rampant in New Zealand despite the fact that most Kiwis couldn't give a damn about religion. I have no religious upbringing yet I treat others very well no matter their sexual orientation or religion. There has always been bad people doing bad things to other people, when religion was at the height of its influence and other times. Why to people steal? To get what they want without having to work for it. This is the work and glory of your secular humanism, which exalts the human above God.Or it's just some people who don't give a damn about others. I wouldn't group all non-religious people together like that. I feel like you're calling every athiest/agnostic a theif/murderer/criminal. I on the other hand am holding out hope for a better society, where we develop our sense of fulfillment by doing God's will, and in doing so, improve the world for all...Apart from those damn homosexuals, obviously :rolleyes: . Again, it's not blind faith. I go in with my eyes open, and see the deterioration in the world around me...Everyone sees it, everyone has a different method of dealing with it. Homosexuals aren't the cause for deterioration in the world. Ironically, we ARE accountable for everything we do. We have more accountability than most people express in their daily lives...No, you don't. You have no way of proving that till you die and when you die you can't prove it to anybody... that doesn't make sense but neither does claiming you have more accountability. The claim "God says it's okay" removes one from personal responsibility. The persecution and discrimination against homosexuals based on an unproveable source is a way of being unaccountable for the pain and suffering you cause to those people, especially when you discover that you were wrong and when that's the time there'll be no way to make amends, you'll be dead. Ironically, we ARE accountable for everything we do. We have more accountability than most people express in their daily lives...Been there, done that, it didn't work and I'm a far better person now that I've stopped basing my life on millenia old principles and rules that are unchanging and based on false information.

Again, it's not blind faith. Sorry, but it is. the existence of the Bible is not substantive enough evidence for the existence of God. You are placing your faith in a being that is utterly intangible.

(Edited for swearing, baseless accusations and emotional outbursts. My bad.)

[ December 08, 2006, 17:23: Message edited by: Clixby ]

Relax. We can have a discussion here without resorting to swearing, baseless accusations and emotional outbursts.

If He is all powerful and is the divine creator of the universe I don't think He could give two monkeys if we don't think He's credible or not. The question about the omnipotent issue is that it's used as an argument to prove God's divine hand in things but then we're hearing that He isn't omnipotent. He either is or He isn't.But if he didn't follow his own laws, then why would we follow them? The idea of a covenent is that it is a sacred promise between man and God. If God will not abide his own rules, then what good is a covenent with him?

And the mandate of religion has been proven to be wrong. If Genesis is the mandate then God got it wrong, the world wasn't created in 7 days, it's far older than claimed and there were never only two humans. As for if it would be accepted or not, I'm certain it would be, provided God would get off His arse and prove He exists.The point is that the mandate of religion is the spiritual salvation of mankind. That's found throughout the rest of the Bible...

So why try to stop them from getting married or lay claim to the word marriage? The Bible calls homosexuality an abomination but it doesn't say that you should persecute homosexuals. Just because somebody sins in one area doesn't mean they will fail in another.We don't want what we consider to be sacred to be defaced by their abominations. By using different words, it recognizes that they are getting their rights from teh state and that the church has washed their hands of them. We don't persecute them, we just want them to stop defiling what we consider sacred.

Not quite, since Quantum Physics isn't a person/entity that claims to know everything. As for Moses being too busy running then how can we trust anything that is written down?One, Moses did get the big point--that the Red Sea parted to allow the people of Israel to flee Egypt and the sea swallowed up the Pharoah's army. Two, I was referring to people asking me for all these details. I am not privy to all that information, and thus do not hold the expertise required to speak on such matters.

Somebody wanting to live their life, their way, has NOTHING to do with you. I still can't believe this argument is being used that they're pushing their abomniable, immoral, sinful lifestyle in your face when it is anything but.When they come out and try to say that their way is acceptable, when it clearly is not (to our perspective), then want the same word, which is sacred to us, used to describe what they do, that is an attack on our beliefs. It is just as reprehensible as urinating in a font of holy water or vandalizing a church with obscene and hateful graphitti. Lose that notion that they aren't hurting anyone, because it's wrong.

Religious values don't need protection. Unless you want to force YOUR religious values upon people who don't follow your religion would there be any need to protect those values. That is not the case and the only people who have religious values are RELIGIOUS PEOPLE.To have our way of life overruled in favour of some politically correct hooey to avoid offending another minority that CHOOSES to refuse what we want, who then demand that we change to accommodate them is what we need protection from. We don't like having the state come right out and contradict our beliefs. While the state can't support us on all things, they should make it perfectly clear that they are seperating the Chruch and State...

The values are held by the religious person, not the homosexual, if the homosexual does this thing that the religious person consideres a sin then the religious person WILL STILL CONSIDER IT A SIN. You can still call it a sin all you damn well please, just don't try and stop people from sinning when they don't harm anybody else in the process.We just want the state to make it clear that the state grants them that right and that religion wants nothing to do with it. That's why we want to call it Civil Unions...

Theocracy? I'm certain that'll be the most democratic nation on the planet.And the opinion of the people will matter just the same in any form of Government. We elect the politicians based on the talk in the elections, but they do whatever they bloody well please anyway. Democracy is an illusion. The people don't matter...

The lead cause of homosexual suicide was the persecution and rejection they faced from society for being homosexual.But they are rejected by society because of their sins. Even if the state gives them what they want, the people will still look down on them becasue it is abnormal or a sin. The State won't change that.

The homosexual lifestyle is actually the most happy lifestyle they could possibly have had,:bs:

it was that they were treated so poorly by society that made them want to top themselves - imagine your own family turning its back on you, your parents ashamed to call you their child etc. THAT is what made these people miserable, not the fact they don't follow God.But they can't expect that religious family or friends will accept their choice. They are shunned because they commit greivous sins and refuse to repent. It's a vicious cycle that will never stop for them.

he's talking about not allowing morals or values to change over time as new ideas/situations develop.And what is wrong with being a little slower ro respond to such changes and evaluating these things more carefully? I think you'll find that these changes are not as good as they appear...

If I remember correctly STDs aren't running rampant in New Zealand despite the fact that most Kiwis couldn't give a damn about religion.Okay, I'd switched from religion itself to a general care and concern for someone other than one's self. Please try to keep up...

I have no religious upbringing yet I treat others very well no matter their sexual orientation or religion.A dying breed I'm afraid. The more people start to put themselves first, the less other people matter.

There has always been bad people doing bad things to other people, when religion was at the height of its influence and other times.It's becoming a lot mroe common now. 30 years ago, did you ever hear of kids taking guns to school to kill their classmates? Does anyone feel safer on the streets at night now than they did 30 years ago?

Or it's just some people who don't give a damn about others.That's the point I'm trying to make there. With the rise of humanistic doctrines, people are putting themselves above all others, and that's not good for society...

Apart from those damn homosexuals, obviouslyThey aren't doing God's will, therefore they won't receive that fulfilment...

Everyone sees it, everyone has a different method of dealing with it. Homosexuals aren't the cause for deterioration in the world.No, but they take a part of the blame, along with any group that places the individual above society's norms and the welfare of others, or who seek to tear away the existing moral fabric to accommodate their sins.

The claim "God says it's okay" removes one from personal responsibility.Wrong. Most cases, such as seeing to the welfare of others, we are REQUIRED to do, and are accountable for whether we do it or not...

The persecution and discrimination against homosexuals based on an unproveable source is a way of being unaccountable for the pain and suffering you cause to those people,Persecution? Discrimination? We merely wish to deny sacred ordinances to those who are not worthy to receive them. When I sought to receive certain ordinances in my church, I had to be interviewed by two different clergy to be deemed worthy to receive these ordinances, and were I still drinking, using drugs or if I were sexually active outside marriage, I would not have been deemed worthy, and thus would not have received these ordinances. That's not discrimination, it's part of the requirements of my faith. Asking them to use a term other tham marriage for their unions is not discrimination either, it's preserving that which is sacred. And as for persecution, talk to me when any mainstream Christian chruch requires their followers to beat, harrass, rob or murder homosexuals. As opposed to the Governor of the State of Missouri signing an Extermination Order for the Mormons in the 1830's. What religion does is not persecution...

Sorry, but it is. the existence of the Bible is not substantive enough evidence for the existence of God. You are placing your faith in a being that is utterly intangible.My experiences, though personal, confirm to me that it is true. These are not blind acceptance, but with eyes open, fully aware of what I am doing.

That's not discrimination, it's part of the requirements of my faith.That is absolutely correct, and I don't think that anyone here is saying that your church should be forced to grant single sex marriages.

Let's try putting it this way though. Let's say a new religion is introduced to the country - let us call it Rotkuism, just for simplicity. Now, in this religion they have a sacred marriage, which comes from some holy doctrine, just like you do. Yet their marriage is only allowed for single sex couples.

Following on from the logic used above, by allowing hetrosexual marriages it is removing the sacradness of their ceremony. Do they have grounds to stop all hetrosexual couples getting married?

Let's try putting it this way though. Let's say a new religion is introduced to the country - let us call it Rotkuism, just for simplicity. Now, in this religion they have a sacred marriage, which comes from some holy doctrine, just like you do. Yet their marriage is only allowed for single sex couples.That would piss off the Christian right to no end...

Some compromise would have to be reached over the name of the ordinance to accommodate the Rotkuists and those that would be offended by their practices...

Following on from the logic used above, by allowing hetrosexual marriages it is removing the sacradness of their ceremony. Do they have grounds to stop all hetrosexual couples getting married?Freedm of religion means that heterosexual marriage is untouchable. By that, some means of accommodation would need to be made for the new religion on the block however. I would like to think that the new religion could take a different name for the ordinance...

But let's for now say they don't. They want to stick with the word marriage. As Freedom of Religion means that hetrosexual marriage is untouchable, can I follow on from this and say that homosexual marriage would also be untouchable, if it was what this new religion believed in?

That's a touchy subject. I'm not versed in Law well enough to know that.

I just know that it will be a huge fight on your hands, and those that spend more time thumping bibles than reading them may actually persecute this group...

I also don't know that such a doctrine could get recognition legally as a religion. Further, there are some curtailings on religious freedom. Muslims in western society cannot wantonly kill non-believers despite it being in their holy book...

So do we have to go through EVERY single religion in the whole world to see which ones have which views on the use of the term "marriage"? Remember that Christianity isn't the only religion in the world, although sometimes some of the people posting here seem to think it is.

What about if there are different languages that have a different set of words to describe marriage. Do we need to go through all those as well.

Just get over it. If a homosexual gets married, it makes no difference to any other marriage. My marriage is not cheapened or impacted, no matter how many other people I don't like go through a ceremony with the same name.

Oh, I'm not asking for a legal opinion, Gnarf. I'm just asking whether, following the logic you use to support keeping marriage to hetrosexual couples (even if it isn't a marriage associated with your church), would you let another church preform homosexual marriages?

And yes, I am pretty certain that such a doctrine would be legally recongised as a religion. And I'm even more certain that it would be persecuted ;)

BUt you have, perhaps unknowning, raised an interesting point in bringing a doctrine of killing non-believers into the picture. I'm not going to use Islamic beliefs, as I am sure what you say will be contested by others, but let us say this Rotkuism, as well as beleiving no hetrosexual couples should be married, they also believe that anyone who doesn't believe in the great Rotku should be burnt alive.

As you rightfully pointed out, dispite freedom of religion, this would obviously not be allowed. That makes perfect sense, and I think we can all agree there. But why is this? Would you agree with me if I said that it's because it under cuts someone else's freedom? Or that it is because it has a negative impact on others?

But if he didn't follow his own laws, then why would we follow them? The idea of a covenent is that it is a sacred promise between man and God. If God will not abide his own rules, then what good is a covenent with him?The point is still moot since, according to Christianity, God is the all-powerful master of the universe and things are good and holy because He says so. The point is that the mandate of religion is the spiritual salvation of mankind. That's found throughout the rest of the Bible...I fail to see what this has to do with the section you quoted bar the word 'mandate'. We don't want what we consider to be sacred to be defaced by their abominations. By using different words, it recognizes that they are getting their rights from teh state and that the church has washed their hands of them. We don't persecute them, we just want them to stop defiling what we consider sacred.A WORD is sacred? Believe it or not but people are still going to called a homosexual couple who have undergone a civil-union to be married. Over time the word marriage has evolved to actcually mean a 'union' and not just a union between man and woman. Better to call a marriage a 'Mormon marriage' or an 'Islamic Marriage' or a 'Bhudist Marriage' or a 'Civil Marriage' than to claim that Christianity has the soul ownership of the word Marriage. It's a word for crying out loud, how can that possibly be scared? I was referring to people asking me for all these details. I am not privy to all that information, and thus do not hold the expertise required to speak on such matters.Well perhaps you'll understand why people become so frustrated with religion that seeks to deny people something but that religion can't explain why they should be denied something short of saying "Because He says so". When they come out and try to say that their way is acceptable, when it clearly is not (to our perspective), then want the same word, which is sacred to us, used to describe what they do, that is an attack on our beliefs. It is just as reprehensible as urinating in a font of holy water or vandalizing a church with obscene and hateful graphitti. Lose that notion that they aren't hurting anyone, because it's wrong.So anyone who says you are wrong is vandalising you and should be shut up? To argue with you is obscene and hateful? To not do as you say should be considered the same as a crime? I'm sorry Gnaff but you really need to realise that there are millions of other points of view and beliefs and that if you don't want yours to be considered wrong then you have to let theirs not be considered wrong either. To have our way of life overruled in favour of some politically correct hooey to avoid offending another minority that CHOOSES to refuse what we want, who then demand that we change to accommodate them is what we need protection from. We don't like having the state come right out and contradict our beliefs. While the state can't support us on all things, they should make it perfectly clear that they are seperating the Chruch and State...Your live isn't going to be overruled in any way. You can still be married according to mormonisim in a mormon church with mormon values. But Charles and Harry are going to be able to get married by a Justice of the Peace or at least a representative of the state down at the local town hall. You don't need to accomidate them, you don't have to do anything in regards to their ceremony, don't go, don't even look at it and it'll still happen. On the other hand they don't need to do anything with reguards to you in order to have it happen. Get used to the state contridicting your beliefs, alcohol and smoking are legal yet it doesn't attack your religion in any way. Separation of church and state means that the state can't get involved in church affairs and the church can't get involved with affairs of the state. If the state wants to allow homosexuals to get married OUTSIDE OF A CHURCH then it dosen't affect the church any way. Your lives are not being overrulled, they're not saying you can't get married, your church can choose to not consider the homosexuals married or even claim that their marriage is an abomination, horrible or whatever you damn well please but you have no grounds to stop it from happening. We just want the state to make it clear that the state grants them that right and that religion wants nothing to do with it. That's why we want to call it Civil Unions...You mean YOUR religion wants nothing to do with it. Another religion is fine and dandy to marry homosexuals. Just because its called marriage does not affect your religion IN ANY WAY. By all the gods IT IS JUST A WORD! A LEGAL TERM. But they are rejected by society because of their sins. Even if the state gives them what they want, the people will still look down on them becasue it is abnormal or a sin. The State won't change that.The people? Who are these people? You mean the Christian/Muslim religious right? In New Zealand we don't look up to or down on homosexuals, they're normal people who just happen to prefer the same genders for their sexual partner. They do what they want without affecting the rest of the country. We let them. Everyone gets along fine. The homosexual lifestyle is actually the most happy lifestyle they could possibly have had,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
:bs: No, it is. No bull**** there. Ask any homosexual if he/she is more happy now that he/she has come out of the closet and if he/she is more happy as a homosexual than trying to be a heterosexual and he/she will will tell you that they are very happy. Don't give me "They'd be more happy in God's loving embrace" crap because you aren't them, you don't know what it's like to be them and people, as you said, have a habit of doing what makes them the most happy. But they can't expect that religious family or friends will accept their choice. They are shunned because they commit greivous sins and refuse to repent. It's a vicious cycle that will never stop for them.Right about the first thing. They can't expect everyone to be happy with their lifestyle choice. They are shunned because according to some religion they should be shunned because according to some religion they're committing some horrible sin. It's a cycle that will stop for them when those religious holier than thous realise that not everyone wants to conform to their ways and they should just let people get on with their lives. According to a religion they do wrong. It's not that they're sinning and know it that makes homos top themselves but the fact that people harrass, shun and make their life miserable because they're homosexual. And what is wrong with being a little slower ro respond to such changes and evaluating these things more carefully? I think you'll find that these changes are not as good as they appear...There is nothing wrong with taking a step back and evaluating the situation before jumping in feet first. But this homosexuality debate has been going on for years now and there is nothing that shows homosexuality to be bad for society. Okay, I'd switched from religion itself to a general care and concern for someone other than one's self. Please try to keep up...Your argument was the lack of religion being the cause for people not showing concern for others. I believe the whole reason people think homosexuals should be allowed to be married and to be recognised as normal people in society is that people CARE about homosexuals and want them to be happy. Otherwise why would we try to make them happy? The more people start to put themselves first, the less other people matter.How about the more people start putting their beliefs first the less people of other beliefs matter? It's becoming a lot mroe common now. 30 years ago, did you ever hear of kids taking guns to school to kill their classmates? Does anyone feel safer on the streets at night now than they did 30 years ago?I wasn't alive 30 years ago but if I remember correctly 30 years ago America was invading other countries and the world was in nuclear-holocost crisis mode, it was the 70s and sex/paganisim was everywhere, so was drug useage. 30 years ago was a harsh time as well, there were just as many problems, they were just as severe just they were different problems. That's the point I'm trying to make there. With the rise of humanistic doctrines, people are putting themselves above all others, and that's not good for society...and [Homosexuals] aren't doing God's will, therefore they won't receive that fulfilment...Just made me chuckle. It's not good for society that one group of people puts themselves above all others. Strange that these humanistic doctrines are trying to put everybody on the same level playing field but you claim they're encouraging people to put themselves above all others. No, but [homosexuals] take a part of the blame, along with any group that places the individual above society's norms and the welfare of others, or who seek to tear away the existing moral fabric to accommodate their sins.A sin is a religious term for something that is deemed immoral by that religion. The basis for it being a sin is because the religion says so. The actual harm the sin has on society needs to be viewed from outside of the religion. Homosexuality has no negative impact on society - NONE. The claim they're trying to tear away at the welfare of others is an insane notion. They just want to have a family like any other person but other groups are saying they shouldn't be allowed to. They're not trying to remove the welfare of others, they just want the same as everybody else. Persecution? Discrimination? We merely wish to deny sacred ordinances to those who are not worthy to receive them.They don't want your fu*king sacred ordinances. They just want to get married and be considered normal in the eyes of the state. You seems to want a Christian marriage to be 'better' than a homosexual marraige. Asking them to use a term other tham marriage for their unions is not discrimination either, it's preserving that which is sacred.It IS discrimination. You're happy to allow heterosexual couples who are married outside of your religion to have a marriage but not a homosexual couple BECAUSE THEY ARE HOMOSEXUAL. That is discrimination. And as for persecution, talk to me when any mainstream Christian chruch requires their followers to beat, harrass, rob or murder homosexuals.Right, so being denied the same rights and responsibilites, being told they're not worthy of marriage or having children isn't persecution because nobody's hitting them or telling it to their face on the street? My experiences, though personal, confirm to me that it is true. These are not blind acceptance, but with eyes open, fully aware of what I am doing.But you're not aware of the affects your actions have upon others and you're not willing to question outside of your doctrine or even acknowledge that parts of your doctrine could be wrong even when the evidence against something in your doctrine is shown to you.

Better to call a marriage a 'Mormon marriage' or an 'Islamic Marriage' or a 'Bhudist Marriage' or a 'Civil Marriage' than to claim that Christianity has the soul ownership of the word Marriage.I believe that I alluded to this on the last thread for this topic. It seems to be the only solution that with (almost) satisfy (nearly) all sides of the argument.

the same word, which is sacred to us, used to describe what they do, that is an attack on our beliefs.That's crazy. Do Christians have a trademark patent on every single word used in the Bible? Oh no, I think I heard a homosexual use the word "created" on Queer Eye for the Straight Guy! What an abomination! What an insult to the heaven and earth that God created!

Clearly that's ridiculous. And in any case, the Bible was written in ancient Hebrew or something, so even if you did own all the words in the Bible, you only own the ancient Hebrew ones, not modern English ones like "marriage".

But if he didn't follow his own laws, then why would we follow them? The idea of a covenent is that it is a sacred promise between man and God. If God will not abide his own rules, then what good is a covenent with him? But parents make rules for their kids that the parent doesn't have to follow, like going to bed at 8 and whatnot, and apparently God is the father of us all, so why is this any different?

The point is that the mandate of religion is the spiritual salvation of mankind. That's found throughout the rest of the Bible...
But the mandate is WRONG in Genesis. What does that say about the rest of the Bible? the fact that Genesis, which is divine mandate, is wrong causes the rest of the book to lose credibility.

When they come out and try to say that their way is acceptable, when it clearly is not (to our perspective)And that's my point. Just because it's offense to YOU and your little clique doesn't mean that the entire world should bend to your needs. Most Christians really don't have a problem with the use of the word "mariage", since they recognise that a word can be used by anyone, and I'd go so far as to say a lot of Christians don't actually have a problem with gays at at all.

To have our way of life overruled in favour of some politically correct hooey to avoid offending another minority that CHOOSES to refuse what we want, who then demand that we change to accommodate them is what we need protection from. We don't like having the state come right out and contradict our beliefs. While the state can't support us on all things, they should make it perfectly clear that they are seperating the Chruch and State... Once again, the State does not use the term "marriage". It's officialy termed a civil union. We've gone through this oh so many times. Unless of course you actually want the Government to impose a ban on homosexuals using the word "marriage". Oh, and they refuse what YOU want, oh, boo hoo. Obiviously the world should function exactly according to the way you think it should.

We just want the state to make it clear that the state grants them that right and that religion wants nothing to do with it. That's why we want to call it Civil Unions...
That's what they're called. HOORAY, YOU WON!

And the opinion of the people will matter just the same in any form of Government. Mmm-hmm. Did you know, perchance, that in a theocracy the word of God is basically law? so, no. No free will, no elections. Just absolute, unchanging rules.

But they are rejected by society because of their sins. Even if the state gives them what they want, the people will still look down on them becasue it is abnormal or a sin. The State won't change that. "The People"? No, I don't think so. The only people who have a problem with homosexuals are the ignorant rednecks and religious bigots.

:bs: :rolleyes:

Persecution? Discrimination? We merely wish to deny sacred ordinances to those who are not worthy to receive them. For Christ's sake, THEY DON'T WANT A RLEIGIOUS ORDINANCE! HOW HARD IS THIS TO UNDESTAND?!

If I could intervene, the word 'Marriage' was not formed by Christians anyway, but Pagan Brits as a referral to the rite of Handfasting. Actually, the vast majority of Christian beliefs came from the Pagan or Druidic beliefs before them. Even Satan himself was a perversion of their own God to discredit 'Witches.' Look it up, it's proven historical fact.

Incidentally, Pagans and Druids have no problem with Homosexuals...

Perhaps Pagans should begin a campaign to reclaim the term and deny the use of the word 'marriage' for christian marriages. Christians could start using the term 'civil union' for whatever it is that is going on in their own households.

What about if there are different languages that have a different set of words to describe marriage. Do we need to go through all those as well.But they have their words for Civil Union too...

Rotku: The Government would have to step in to keep the peace. I propose that To keep the peace, Religion get to keep the term marriage and let the gays use the words civil unions. Your Rotkuists, from your example, would be required to choose another word or go without.

Perhaps the killing non-believers was out of line, but in the United States, despite the Bill of Rights, the early Mormons were incarcerated for having multiple wives. This was done to keep the peace between one sect and the majority. Your Rotkuists would be in the same boat to my way of reasoning...

The point is still moot since, according to Christianity, God is the all-powerful master of the universe and things are good and holy because He says so.And God says that Homosexuality is an abomination, therefore it is offensive to those that follow Him.

A WORD is sacred?Yes, it is. That's why we're so pissed off about it's misuse in this situation.

So anyone who says you are wrong is vandalising you and should be shut up? To argue with you is obscene and hateful? To not do as you say should be considered the same as a crime?No, but to take the name of a sacred ordinance and apply it to something we consider vile and evil is. It's like using your name to describe vomit or some other repulsive stuff. Would you not be insulted?

Separation of church and state means that the state can't get involved in church affairs and the church can't get involved with affairs of the state.But the people who follow the church can write their member of parliament and if they don't like the way he votes, vote for someone else next time around. The State also intervenes in matters of religion on occasion. This time seperating church and state is the way to maintain peace.

By all the gods IT IS JUST A WORD! A LEGAL TERM.By word of our God, marriage is a sacred ordinance, and I'll ask that you show it more respect. If you are unwilling to show this respect, then what does this say for your definition of social progress?

They are shunned because according to some religion they should be shunned because according to some religion they're committing some horrible sin. It's a cycle that will stop for them when those religious holier than thous realise that not everyone wants to conform to their ways and they should just let people get on with their lives.Think of a religion as a community. You violate the rules of a community, then they have sanctions against you. This shunning is one of these sanctions. You look down on us, but what gives you that right? Is not your "Openly tolerate them because there's nothing wrong with them" spiel not just you being Holier than thou?

There is nothing wrong with taking a step back and evaluating the situation before jumping in feet first. But this homosexuality debate has been going on for years now and there is nothing that shows homosexuality to be bad for society.This is not about good or bad for society, but moral or immoral that we're talking here. That one we really don't need to think about. We're not accepting it and that's God's final answer, given over 4000 years ago.

people CARE about homosexuals and want them to be happy. Otherwise why would we try to make them happy?But they don't give a damn about us religious folk, so they'll let them slander one of our sacred ordinances. Thank you for showing the true colours. You aren't interested in making peace, but seeing us religious folk beaten into submission...

How about the more people start putting their beliefs first the less people of other beliefs matter?Yes, I see that in your vehement opposition of any compromise on this issue simply on the grounds of terminology. Unfortunately, in the face of this refusal, I have to follow your lead and oppose you on this because I don't want what I feel is sacred to be defiled by those who wish to legitimze their greivous sins.

Strange that these humanistic doctrines are trying to put everybody on the same level playing field but you claim they're encouraging people to put themselves above all others.But just like religions, they exalt their own doctrines above all others. They don't level the playing field at all.

A sin is a religious term for something that is deemed immoral by that religion. The basis for it being a sin is because the religion says so.And why should religion have to suffer that what they consider to be a sacred ordinance to be dragged down by it's application to what they consider to be most offensive?

They don't want your fu*king sacred ordinances.Rejected! Marriage is a sacred ordinance, regardless of who performs it, be it a religious figure, captain of a ship, justice of the peace or an Elvis impersonator in Las Vegas. As such, it is ordained of God, whether the people getting married care or not. This makes it Sacred.

They just want to get married and be considered normal in the eyes of the state.Then why antagonize the religious community by demanding that it be called marriage? This is not asking for protection under law, but an act of hatred.

You seems to want a Christian marriage to be 'better' than a homosexual marraige.Sanctiond by god makes it superior in my eyes, but to those that do not believe or even hate God or religion, that makes the civil union more attractive. This is only a matter of perspective, but one that I must insist on.

It IS discrimination. You're happy to allow heterosexual couples who are married outside of your religion to have a marriage but not a homosexual couple BECAUSE THEY ARE HOMOSEXUAL. That is discrimination.Marriage is, by definition, between a man and a woman, ordained of God. Homosexuals, are not of opposite genders, therefore do not meet that definition. By using the term Civil union or making up some Homosexual specific term if they choose, they find a legal way to accommodate themselves without provoking religious groups.

Right, so being denied the same rights and responsibilites, being told they're not worthy of marriage or having children isn't persecution because nobody's hitting them or telling it to their face on the street?You want us to accept and respect you? Here's our rules. You don't play ball, then we don't recognize or accept you. Any group you can think of does that.

But you're not aware of the affects your actions have upon others and you're not willing to question outside of your doctrine or even acknowledge that parts of your doctrine could be wrong even when the evidence against something in your doctrine is shown to you.Actually, I do. I am drawing a line in the sand and standing up for what I believe in. Here in the alleys, most of those that comment are those that oppose me, but I think more see it than respond here in the Alleys. Further, I do see information outside my beliefs, but I detect taht they are wrong. I also don't see your evidence as proving anything other than that I'm not the only one that needs to get a life...

Do Christians have a trademark patent on every single word used in the Bible?No, just the ones that regard to sacred ordinances, like marriage.

But parents make rules for their kids that the parent doesn't have to follow, like going to bed at 8 and whatnot, and apparently God is the father of us all, so why is this any different?But we're talking about grown-ups here. Once the child grows up, they are adults, just like the parents. At this point, the parents should obey the same rules they ask of the children. If they don't, then they are poor examples. God, since he is the perfect example, will abide his own rules.

But the mandate is WRONG in Genesis. What does that say about the rest of the Bible? the fact that Genesis, which is divine mandate, is wrong causes the rest of the book to lose credibility.Actually, I don't accept your claims that Genesis is wrong. Doesn't the earth have to be formed first? Then from there, establishment of when light is out and when there is darkness? And after that, the location of water and land? Then the plants? then the animals? And finally the Humans? That's the order in Genesis 1, What's wrong with that?

Just because it's offense to YOU and your little clique doesn't mean that the entire world should bend to your needs.How big does our faith have to be for the state to accommodate us in a democracy?

Once again, the State does not use the term "marriage". It's officialy termed a civil union.Then if that's the case, why isn't this resolved by now? Is this now about more than just equal rights?

That's what they're called. HOORAY, YOU WON!Then why didn't anyone tell me?

Did you know, perchance, that in a theocracy the word of God is basically law? so, no. No free will, no elections. Just absolute, unchanging rules.i'd prefer that to the whim of a bunch of rich guys that are more interested in their own interests as opposed to the public good...

The only people who have a problem with homosexuals are the ignorant rednecks and religious bigots.So basically anyone with an external sense of morality and the balls to stand up and defend it. Gotcha. I take offense that you are degrading rednecks (seeing as I technically do qualify), and the use of the term bigot. Your hatred of religion would paint us both as bigots...

THEY DON'T WANT A RLEIGIOUS ORDINANCE! HOW HARD IS THIS TO UNDESTAND?!But this areguement has broken down over the use of the word marriage. Marriage IS a sacred ordinance. By this, you are wrong, and the caps lock makes it blatantly obvious. Good gob!

Actually, the vast majority of Christian beliefs came from the Pagan or Druidic beliefs before them. Even Satan himself was a perversion of their own God to discredit 'Witches.' Look it up, it's proven historical fact.Suppose for a minute, that all humanity is decended from the prophet Noah and his three sons. By this, the Pagan Brits would have as their religious tradition the oral recounting of their ancestors (basically christian doctrine), but in the abscence of priesthood authority and the actual source material, they would have a distorted version of this. So basically, it wasn't Christianity adopting Pagan rituals, but correcting the pagan traditions...

Incidentally, Pagans and Druids have no problem with Homosexuals...That's part of the teachings that were lost in the 2500 years or so between the flood and the spread of Christianity in the Celtic lands...

Marriage is a sacred ordinance, regardless of who performs it, be it a religious figure, captain of a ship, justice of the peace or an Elvis impersonator in Las Vegas. As such, it is ordained of God, whether the people getting married care or not. This makes it Sacred.Now this is just plain wrong. If I seek to get married in a non-religious ceremony I am still getting married in a religious ceremony? Utter dribble, Gnaff.

The whole basis of your argument is that marriage is a Christian only term and this is simply not true. It's a word used to describe a union and not always between two people. I can't see how Christians could claim marriage as 'their' word. Other religions use it, I'll use it to describe a union between two entities, if somebody uses it and you're offended it doesn't mean they can't use it anymore.

That you'd want the law to recognise a religious civil-union to be different from a non-religious civil-union is just segregation of the population and an implication that the state favors people of one religion over another or people of no religion. But they don't give a damn about us religious folk, so they'll let them slander one of our sacred ordinances. Thank you for showing the true colours. You aren't interested in making peace, but seeing us religious folk beaten into submission...There are times, and I dare say this is one of them, where you're right about wanting them beaten into submission. However, this is not the basis of my argument. You claim Christianity is offended beyond reproach at the idea of a homosexual couple calling their 'civil-union' a marriage when the only difference between a Christian marriage in a church for a heterosexual couple and a homosexual marriage outside of a church is that one is Christian and the other isn't. You want special rules because you're Christian and it stinks of arrogance.

The world will call it marriage because its a simple way of describing a union between two people who love each other and who wish to raise a family and live with each other for the rest of their lives. Suppose for a minute, that all humanity is decended from...Suppose that maybe, despite all evidence to the contrary the load of dribble that follows is true. Yeah, maybe then your argument would have a leg to stand on but this is not the case, Gnaff. We're not all decended from two fig leaf wearing hippies. The world wasn't created only 4000-odd years ago. There was no massive flood and repopulation of the world by only two of every species. It just didn't happen because it couldn't have happened, it would be impossible to populate the world to as it is today from such a small starting number of people, especially considering the number of wars, plagues, famines and natural disasters the world has been subjected to.

Christianity did not invent marriage, they don't have any claim to the word and just because you think you do doesn't mean you can call somebody using it to describe a homosexual union an attack on your religion.

Blasphemy! Burn the pagans! Them fags are using the word marriage! :rolleyes:

By word of our God, marriage is a sacred ordinance I still think that this means that you should use the 4000 year old ancient Hebrew word for marriage - if your so excited about using the word from God and the Bible, and then let everyone else get on with using the very non-offensive word marriage.

Now this is just plain wrong. If I seek to get married in a non-religious ceremony I am still getting married in a religious ceremony?If your bride is a woman (I believe from your other posts that you are male), then the Lord recognizes your marriage, whether you care or not.

The whole basis of your argument is that marriage is a Christian only term and this is simply not true.I know other religions use the term, but from what I hear, Jewish and Muslim faiths originated from the same set of doctrine, only deviating on where they split from that base. Those three faiths alone ought to lend enough credibility to fight for the sanctity of marriage.

if somebody uses it and you're offended it doesn't mean they can't use it anymore.But we're asking that a different term be used. That's all. We're asking them to respect our wishes and go in peace, with the emphasis on go...

That you'd want the law to recognise a religious civil-union to be different from a non-religious civil-union is just segregation of the population and an implication that the state favors people of one religion over another or people of no religion.But the only difference is in the eyes of religion which has no bearing on the state.

There are times, and I dare say this is one of them, where you're right about wanting them beaten into submission.And I get called a bigot. You want to forcibly rewrite what I believe in to accommodate what I find morally reprehensible? What gives you that right? Are you actually trying to bait me into breaking several rules here? Get a life...

You claim Christianity is offended beyond reproach at the idea of a homosexual couple calling their 'civil-union' a marriage when the only difference between a Christian marriage in a church for a heterosexual couple and a homosexual marriage outside of a church is that one is Christian and the other isn't.The difference is that homosexuality is an abomination, something to be considered vile and reprehensible. It is the same sex thing that we are objecting to, not the non-Christian part. We don't want to be linked with them. That's why we want seperate terms.

Yeah, maybe then your argument would have a leg to stand onIt works quite well for those that do believe.

We're not all decended from two fig leaf wearing hippies.From the point where they left the Garden of Eden, they were taught to make coats of skins from the hide of animals to hide their nakedness. They were not hippies either.

The world wasn't created only 4000-odd years ago.Genesis chapter 1 covers a period of about 4 billion years. We've been ofer this, and only the "Gnarf, you're an idiot" crowd is insisting on 24 hour days for creation...

it would be impossible to populate the world to as it is today from such a small starting number of people,Hmm, God, the almighty Father or some guy on a message board, who's word am I going to take?

Blasphemy! Burn the pagans! Them fags are using the word marriage!You've been listening to Pat Roberts again, haven't you...

From the point where they left the Garden of Eden, they were taught to make coats of skins from the hide of animals to hide their nakedness. They were not hippies either. But did they do incest, right? Or their children did? Or something? Or were there more immaculate conceptions in those days? Something must have happened for them to end up with grandchildren.

It's like using your name to describe vomit or some other repulsive stuff. Would you not be insulted? Actually, I'd find that kind of funny.
By word of our God, marriage is a sacred ordinance, and I'll ask that you show it more respect. They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery...
As such, it is ordained of God, whether the people getting married care or not. This makes it Sacred. Why do the