Daniel0 Posted November 8, 2008 Share Posted November 8, 2008 I agree with CV. What if a person said he was a christian, but didn't believe in Jesus Christ? That would contradict Christianity and thus you wouldn't be a real christian. It's the same concept only "being homosexual is not allowed" is replaced with "Jesus Christ". Actually, what I said is only true if it indeed is true that Christianity prohibits homosexuality. Considering I'm not religious in any way I wouldn't possibly know. There are indeed churches out there who claim to be christian churches, who allow gay marriages. And I scratch my head wondering how they rightfully call themselves christian. That depends on how you/they define Christianity. If you define e.g. as believing in Jesus Christ then they could be, if you define it as taking The Bible 100% literally then they may possibly not be. As long as their views do not contradict fundamental christian doctrine then why wouldn't they be christian? Why would someone have the right to dictate how Christianity/The Bible should be interpreted? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corbin Posted November 8, 2008 Share Posted November 8, 2008 You know, there are plenty of people who follow beliefs that do not include the bible, or no belief at all, who oppose gay marriage, or gays in general (I hate using the term homophobic, as I feel that that is not an accurate label for opposers). Why you guys got to stereotype? And please don't say something along the lines of "Because most people who oppose gay people are bible thumpers," because that's obviously the idea behind stereotyping. I was mainly using biblical people as an example. Marriage is a religious thing after all. I mean, I guess it could be viewed as straight up social in some aspects now, since marriage has become standard. There are always more than 1 reason for everything, but I would think the main reason would be religion. Believe it or not, I personally do not have a problem with a gay couple getting a civil union. That is, going down to the justice of the peace/clerk and being recognized as "married" under the law. As far as the law is concerned, it's about filing taxes jointly such and all. Gay people are tax paying citizens just the same as straight people. I do not feel they should be discriminated in that aspect. They live together and pay bills together etc.. so why shouldn't they be allowed the same govt. benefits? To me, the problem starts when they want to have a ceremony for a religion that believes gay marriage is not okay. How can you expect to stand in front of a priest with a bible and be sanctified in the eyes of God, when the bible says it's wrong? Why would you even want to? It's not even a requirement for civil union. I've met others who feel the same way as I do: okay with civil union, not okay with religious ceremony. Unfortunately, many people on both sides of the fence put civil union and religious union in the same boat, not even recognizing it as something that is separate, and I personally think that's where a lot of opposition comes from. Not all of the opposition. As I have said in previous posts, there are many reasons why people are for or against it. My overall point is that it's not as black and white as people make it out to be. Blerh my response that you quoted was a horribly thought out, 2 second thought, that I wish I had never written. What I really meant, like you said, was that the problem stems from religious marriages. I don't know if anyone would have a problem with gay marriage if it didn't include ceremonies (well some people still would). In my opinion, gays should be able to get marriage in any kind of ceremony they want. I don't care if they want to burn the bible at their wedding. It's none of my business to try to force my beliefs upon them, even if their beliefs go directly against or insult my beliefs. (I'm sort of Christian.... My family is Christian, but I would consider my self Skeptical, if that were a religion ;p.) I have an issue with Marriage to begin with. I mean, why does the government even do things differently for married couples? It doesn't make sense. Just because one is married doesn't mean one should have different things than one who isn't married. I don't think there should even be a such thing as civil unions. I think marriages should be between God and the people getting married. (Assuming the people who would be getting married's religion [or lack of religion] has a marriage type thing.) So hrmmm, I just basically echoed parts of your post, and threw my own personal beliefs into it. lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mchl Posted November 8, 2008 Share Posted November 8, 2008 I have an issue with Marriage to begin with. I mean, why does the government even do things differently for married couples? It doesn't make sense. Just because one is married doesn't mean one should have different things than one who isn't married. I don't think there should even be a such thing as civil unions. I think marriages should be between God and the people getting married. (Assuming the people who would be getting married's religion [or lack of religion] has a marriage type thing.) There's this assumption (I'm not saying now if it's right or wrong) that married couple is more likely to create a stable family, and thus marriage's function is beneficial for society. That's why governments encourage people to make official bonds to each other. There used to be a tax for old bachelors you know (and some want it back!). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corbin Posted November 8, 2008 Share Posted November 8, 2008 If that were the case, wouldn't it be the government's job to monitor our diets, our exercise, our mental health and what ever else makes a "better society?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mchl Posted November 8, 2008 Share Posted November 8, 2008 Some people believe that's already the case. Monitoring and controlling is different thing from encouraging. After all there are public service ads for healthy lifestyle, aren't they? Do you see your freedom endangered by them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.josh Posted November 8, 2008 Share Posted November 8, 2008 Married people are more likely to reproduce. More children == more tax payers and people to buy stuff from the corporations that run this company. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corbin Posted November 8, 2008 Share Posted November 8, 2008 Some people believe that's already the case. Monitoring and controlling is different thing from encouraging. After all there are public service ads for healthy lifestyle, aren't they? Do you see your freedom endangered by them? I'm not rewarded [by my gov] for any of those few example I gave. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkWater Posted November 8, 2008 Author Share Posted November 8, 2008 Married people are more likely to reproduce. More children == more tax payers and people to buy stuff from the corporations that run this company. I can guarantee you that whether a gay couple is married or unmarried does not affect their 0% chance of reproduction, so why does that matter? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.josh Posted November 9, 2008 Share Posted November 9, 2008 Some people believe that's already the case. Monitoring and controlling is different thing from encouraging. After all there are public service ads for healthy lifestyle, aren't they? Do you see your freedom endangered by them? I'm not rewarded [by my gov] for any of those few example I gave. Public service ads for a healthy lifestyle? where? Can you give an example? I see plenty of ads for a healthy lifestyle, but it's always someone trying to sell me something... Married people are more likely to reproduce. More children == more tax payers and people to buy stuff from the corporations that run this company. I can guarantee you that whether a gay couple is married or unmarried does not affect their 0% chance of reproduction, so why does that matter? Okay we've moved on from that debate. We're now talking about why the government supports marriage, in general. I suppose we could talk about that, if you like...just sayin'...we've already moved on to topic #20 in this thread. Okay I'll address that. Studies show that married people are more inclined to want to raise a family. Traditionally that's done the old fashioned-way (you know, the whole birds and bees talk your dad gave you when you were knee high to a grasshopper). But in this day and age, that includes artificial insemination, adoption (I guess this one has been around for a while, too), willing member of the opposite sex (friend, family, 'family', whatever...) willing to do en-vitro fertilization in a lab (or at home, woohoo!). Point is, "how" the couple expands their circle is not really relevant. I guess I could have put "reproduce" in quotes when I originally posted, and I probably would have, if we were still talking about gay people, so I will formally submit that they be put in quotes now.... "Married" people are more likely to "reproduce." More "children" == more tax payers and people to buy stuff from the corporations that run this country. In honor of an even more previous discussion about uh, marriage vs. civil union, I went ahead and put 'married' in quotes, as well. Also, I put "children" in quotes, because the context and assumption right now is that they are human. We could be cloning ourselves soon. Or aliens could land and we could adopt or have an inter-racial-breeding frenzy before people really sort out whether they have rights or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corbin Posted November 9, 2008 Share Posted November 9, 2008 "Also, I put "children" in quotes, because the context and assumption right now is that they are human. We could be cloning ourselves soon. Or aliens could land and we could adopt or have an inter-racial-breeding frenzy before people really sort out whether they have rights or not." lololololol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mchl Posted November 9, 2008 Share Posted November 9, 2008 Public service ads for a healthy lifestyle? where? Can you give an example? I see plenty of ads for a healthy lifestyle, but it's always someone trying to sell me something... Don't know how it looks on your side of the pond. Here each advertisment of cigarettes or beer must be accompanied with with proper warning on health effects (why only beer? because no other alcoholic beverages may be advertised). These are the most visible examples, because others are usually in the form of leaflets you can get at your doctor's office... bleh... But still, these are government funded public service ads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.josh Posted November 9, 2008 Share Posted November 9, 2008 cigarette companies aren't allowed to advertise here. Not on TV, anyways. Though they are allowed to do product placement in movies etc.. alcohol has no restrictions afaik. I've seen beer, wine, hard liquor ads just the same. Some of the alcohol ads will throw in a "and remember drink responsibly" at the end, but nothing like the disclaimers pharmaceutical ads have to make. But anyways, I still wouldn't call that a public service ad promoting a healthy lifestyle. That's simply a company trying to sell you something unhealthy and being forced to throw on a disclaimer about it. And they sure don't do it willingly. They use as few, ambiguous words as possible, hire an auctioneer to talk at like 500 wpm in a very quiet voice, etc... lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mchl Posted November 9, 2008 Share Posted November 9, 2008 No tobacco or alcohol ads in TV or radio here. Only outdoor and newspapers/magazines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy-H Posted November 9, 2008 Share Posted November 9, 2008 "Also, I put "children" in quotes, because the context and assumption right now is that they are human. We could be cloning ourselves soon. Or aliens could land and we could adopt or have an inter-racial-breeding frenzy before people really sort out whether they have rights or not." lololololol Yeh, only if the aliens aren't too freaky looking, other that that it's all good I suppose... lol I was reading the paper the other week whilst sipping my tea and eating buttered crumpets at noon and I read that Obama is contradicting himself and his policies in most of his speeches. Don't get me wrong I wanted him to win but I didn't watch and keep up-to-date with any of it... And if someone is earning 250k a year then surely they can afford to move to a tax-free country. I got my tax code the other day and if I earn over 35k I will get taxed 40% on anything over that amount. And I think it's pretty sad how Bush started an oil war and now Osama wants to pull his troops out and leave it to NATO, ffs, not our war. If only Tony Blair wasn't such an arse-lick... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.josh Posted November 9, 2008 Share Posted November 9, 2008 "You know, sometimes I wish I did a little more with my life instead of hanging out in front of places selling weed and s**t. Like, maybe be an animal doctor. Why not me? I like seals and s**t. Or maybe an astronaut. Yeah. Like, be the first motherf****r to see a new galaxy, or find a new alien lifeform... and f**k it. And people'd be like, "There he goes. Homeboy f****d a Martian once." - Jay, Clerks II Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
effigy Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 If you follow a religion that believes abc and you decide that only a and b apply to you, you are no longer following that religion, and you shouldn't be able to expect a follower of abc to recognize you as a follower of abc. Can we thereby say that all Christians who support(ed) the war are no longer such? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mchl Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 I believe that at least in some cases being a Christian does not conflict with supporting or taking part in war. Jesus told this thing about the other cheek, but he didn't say people should let others to beat them down to death. Hence at least in Catholic teachings, the division on "just" and "unjust" wars. That reminds an old question: "If God is with us, then who is with them?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel0 Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 That reminds an old question: "If God is with us, then who is with them?" From the point of view of "us" in a monotheistic religion, nobody (at least no deity). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mchl Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 You forgot that some Christians believe in non-deity entity being a personification of all evil. And how about the point of view of let's say Catholic vs. Protestant conflict? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel0 Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 Well, it's quite simple actually. Either part of the conflict believes that God supports themselves and thus opposed the other part. In reality there are four options: 1) God supports party #1 2) God supports party #2 3) God doesn't care 4) God doesn't exist Party #1 believes in option 1, party #2 in option 2, and I believe in option 4. Thus I believe that both parties are mistaken. It's exactly like "good" and "evil" is a matter of point of view. You always believe your way of doing things is the best, so you are per definition good in your own eyes. Logically speaking the other one must then be evil. However, seeing as both parties believes that this voids the meaning of those two concepts, at least objectively speaking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.josh Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 #3: Do you mean God doesn't care as in he doesn't care about anybody/anything? Or do you mean God doesn't care as in he supports both parties and both parties are being retarded children? I think 3) needs to be broken down to those 2 options, making 5 options. And I'm afraid I can't really agree with your assessment of the options. I do not think that most people view themselves or others as 100% good or evil. Nor do I think one always believes their way is the best way. The world just isn't that black and white. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel0 Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 #3: Do you mean God doesn't care as in he doesn't care about anybody/anything? Or do you mean God doesn't care as in he supports both parties and both parties are being retarded children? I meant the latter actually, but I suppose the former would be possible as long as God exists of course. And I'm afraid I can't really agree with your assessment of the options. I do not think that most people view themselves or others as 100% good or evil. Nor do I think one always believes their way is the best way. The world just isn't that black and white. Well, no, of course not, but take Iran for instance. Many western countries perceive Iran to be bad. On the other hand, so does Iran think about western countries like USA. This is due to ideological differences. By the way, I'm talking on a governmental level here. With "good" and "evil" I simply meant that whoever is "evil" is doing things incorrectly according to the "good" people (dunno if this makes sense). Also, nobody in the real world gets up in the morning and says "How can I be evil today? What kind of evil things can I do today?". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mchl Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 Just got it in my RSS box God Confusion Entertaining if nothing more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
effigy Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 I believe that at least in some cases being a Christian does not conflict with supporting or taking part in war. Jesus told this thing about the other cheek, but he didn't say people should let others to beat them down to death. Did Moses add footnotes to the Ten Commandments, or is this another case of conflicting verses where you pick whichever one suits your case? Who was being beaten to death (threatened)? Christianity confuses me because the word is derived from "Christ," and yet the Bible seems to play the bigger role. In my opinion it seems that the Bible reigns, no matter if it conflicts with the words and actions of Christ. Therefore, I propose a split: Christianity--Those who follow Christ, but may still reference the Bible in support of Christ. Biblianity--Those who follow the Bible, with a lesser interest in Christ. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mchl Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 I pick nothing. I only recall what I was taught in religion classes (and sure kids love to ask questions like: "did my grandpa go to hell because he was a soldier in a war?"). The explanation was that killing another man in a war or in self defence is not necessarily a sin (although should be avoided). # Who was being beaten to death (threatened)? No one in the Bible. What I meant was, there are many ways in which 'turning the other cheek' phrase might be understood. Some take it literally as promoting unconditional nonresistance, others (like me) think, that no matter what, every person has the right to defend his or hers life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.