God?

[Ruby]

Alright, first of all let me start with the gay marriage bit here.. I can't believe that during an election year that was the biggest topic. Which blows my mind because I would think things like national security, the budget, unemployment, and lots of our best jobs going to India are /far/ more important that two people wanting to be married. An issue, maybe, but the /biggest/ issue. Bigger than homelessness, health care, and revising the tax system? Please!

That said if you wanted to make a case against gay marriage I suppose you could say that it would cloud the definition legally. There are also several benefits given out to married couples (which I don't particularly agree with, BTW) that give them benefits as opposed to two single people living in the same household. Therefore it might be best to have "Civil Unions" as opposed to marriage to keep the legal definitions seperate and allow one type of union to be address singularly. Of course this then creates problems similar to segregation, as we all know the seperation creates a situation where one would be treated more unfairly than the other.

The real reason it was such a big issue is fear. Groups that want to specifically want to limit gay rights /fear/ gay people. This fear becomes anger, and they therefore want to control them so they can stop what they fear. The same is true about the KKK. The KKK is /afraid/ of black people, this becomes anger toward what they fear and they try to control them.

Ramza, I really don't have much to say to you. Anything I could possiblly say in response you've said for me by what you write and the way you write it. In the future I would suggest you stop assuming things about people you've never even met and pick an example for your arguement that isn't so easily defeated. Also realize that if this thread is locked, I will personally consider you responsible as the catalyst for this event.

PS. Thank you so much for calling me cold and hard-hearted. I'm equally as capable of making such comments about you based on what you believe. Note however, that I didn't.

[PrettyGirlJean]

I may not be able to convince anyone that the Bible is historically accurate or factual (esp regarding the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ), but I think it's safe to say that people whining and blubbering about the difficulty of chosing religions or the hard-hearted and cold atheist who sees no point in any of this discussion need to put aside the crap and recognize the universal need for redemption.

I think it's a little uncalled for to go name calling (ie "Hard-hearted and cold atheist") and be outright insensitive to people who are honestly really trying to find their religious path. I realize that this is an open forum for members thoughts, a debate, and I'm not trying to say you have no right to voice your opinion... but this is suppose to be civilized and there's really no need to take a patronizing tone. Of course I am only speaking for myself. I think most everyone here has maturely expressed their views. I don't think my confusion is "crap" and I do not believe that I or anyone else has been "whining" or "blubbering" about their views whatever they may be.

Of course since this is the internet and I don't know exactly the tone of your post, I apologize ahead of time if I interpreted your words incorrectly... however, in the future 'I think it's safe to say' it would be wise not to refer to people's views as crap. While I don't agree with some of the things you've said I still find your views interesting to read.


Anyhow, Ruby, I am with you on the uneeded attention to homosexual marriages. As crass as Dave Chappelle's take on Bush was in one of his episodes, I think it does highlight how ridiculous it got. I am not gay, and yes I have gay friends and family members, but their private lives have never affected mine. Neither have any other gay couples or their marriages. I feel bad that such a private thing has to be made so public. But I truly don't want to offend anyone with my views on it so I 'll stop that topic here.

[Kizyr]

Show me where in the Declaration of Independence, or in the Constitution, it says that those who are different then us should have their natural rights banned and ignored because we don't agree with their choices.

Haha!

Section 2, Clause 3:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Ok so that was nixed by the 13th through 15th Amendments, but still, you did ask.

Alright, first of all let me start with the gay marriage bit here.. I can't believe that during an election year that was the biggest topic. Which blows my mind because I would think things like national security, the budget, unemployment, and lots of our best jobs going to India are /far/ more important that two people wanting to be married. An issue, maybe, but the /biggest/ issue. Bigger than homelessness, health care, and revising the tax system? Please!

Well, turning the entire election into a debate over gay marriage was the perfect way to encourage more and more folks to vote who wouldn't've cared otherwise. It was an excellent use of manipulation. I'm almost envious--at least, I would be if I were evil.

Meh, if I'm going to get into a serious religious discussion I'll need lots of space. I don't feel up to it right now. Maybe later. KF

[Darkgeohound]

You people are very knowledgable about this kind of thing. I enjoy reading this forum, but why can't homosexuals get married and live a happy and peaceful life like all other marries couples? It is their life, let them do with it as they see fit.

[Jenner]

Section 2, Clause 3:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Ok so that was nixed by the 13th through 15th Amendments, but still, you did ask.

LOL, that racist crap better not still be in there. Shameful. I'm assuming that ammendment was mostly to take advantage of Indian lands and minimize the effect of native-american votes since, to my knowledge, they're still largely democratic?

[Darkgeohound]

I just thought of something: The pole has a coice to say "Sometimes," but if you only believe somtimes, whats the point? Because if you sometimes believe would that not equate to sometimes faithful? So does that equal not believer?

That was phrased really poorly, but i hope you guys know what i mean.

[Dyn]

Personally, I choose to believe in God for a number of reasons, but, to save time. I will just give you the most logical one.

In the human brain, there is a place for "Belief" and many scientists believe that this is the source of religious visions, beliefs, etc. Yes. It's true. There's a section of the brain dedicated to that one purpose, but it makes sense -- Why wouldn't God equip something made in his own image with something to identify his existence with?

If you started hearing voices in your head, telling you to do something, you'd automatically assume yourself as a psycho, and would look into mental wards... Or just completely deny it... But, with that section of the brain, we can say "Hey. This is of a power beyond me." I guess, you can consider it the "Irrational" part of the brain, where we attempt to understand irrational things, such as forever, life, and other things beyond our grasp. Have you ever wondered how the universe can possibly just go on for infinity? Have you ever tried to imagine it? Try it. You're head hurts, doesn't it? But, the irrational part of our brain tells us that it must go on forever. Because if it ever stopped, what would be beyond that?

It is seemingly impossible to have a number of corresponding values that just happen to equal life. What makes Billions upon billions of carbon atoms work together to create consciousness? What gives us free will, while other animals follow only their instincts? How come all these things fell into place so perfectly, as to be the perfect place for life to begin? These sort of things have lead me to believe that there must be an outer force choreographing all these things together to create life.

While I'm not really a member of any specific denomination of the Christian religion, nor do I attend church on a regular basis, I do believe that there is in fact a God. But, I do recognize other beliefs. We have free will, and we can choose to do, or believe, what we wish.

[Sonic#]

I'm having trouble right now reconciling that infinity as a concept is irrational. I suppose it is irrational in the sense that I can't point to a group of sheep in real life and say, "Well, those infinite sheep are sure eating a lot of grass," because before making that statement, if it were true, my head would explode. But at the same time, it is a concept that has been used for many uses, especially mathematically. I think I get what you're saying, and that irrational is just something that doesn't quite fit?

As to your justifications about god, Dyn, I think it works. If I were to believe, I would do so along those lines.

I just thought of something: The pole has a coice to say "Sometimes," but if you only believe somtimes, whats the point? Because if you sometimes believe would that not equate to sometimes faithful? So does that equal not believer?

Well, it's still possible to have an infinity with only half of all positive integers. Both the sequences 2x and 2x-1 (x -> infinity) will continue to infinity, though they will describe only even and odd numbers, respectively. But someone will point out that math is not the same thing as believing, so I must tackle this another way.

I think that a god would be understanding if we didn't believe all the time. What would matter is that the attempt to believe is made, and hopefully achieved. I tried just now to think of someone that could believe and not believe at convenience with malicious intentions. I do not see how such a person could reconcile themselves with their beliefs. They would either be always believing, but acknowledging that they have made mistakes, or never believing, and unrepentant of the act. The belief would partially determine the response to the action.

I'm running into a wall here. Can someone see it? I've run out of focus to continue, except to say that there're many kinds of beliefs, more than a belief in God, and that I think as long as someone believes in something, and that something is good (what is good is another related discussion entirely), and that they keep to it, that it's faithful.

[Coley Lou]

I'm not going to say too much because I'm at work. And I have an interesting conversation to post later. But to Kizzie thanks for posting that, I was just cursing about how I don't have my U.S. Const book anymore but I did remember that. And Jenn that's not an ammendment that's one of the Articles, but it was later ammended. I still can't believe I got an A in that class. I'm so terrible with that stuff.

As for the believeing sometimes. I believe sometimes because I have had it inbeded in my "programing" to believe, but my free will allows me to not believe. But since I think I'll get in trouble if I don't believe I kind of believe, but since I don't think it's real, I don't believe.

To Jenner about the believing in God because you'd be better off in the end then not believeing. We discussed this in our Philosophy class a long time ago, when I was 19 I think, so I can't remember the guys name.

But the guy said that if God exsists and you believe in him you go to heaven, if you don't believe you go to hell. If he doesn't exsist and you believe he exsists nothing happens, and if you don't believe nothing happens. And there for you'd be safer just believeing.

The problem with that argument is, what if a diety from another religion is the supreme being. Are we dammned by their religion?

I know jack about other more "exotic" religions. But let's say Religion A is right, but Christianity is Religion B. Religion A believes that anyone who does not believe in Religion A goes to whatever their eternal suffering place is, so then in sense all Christians, and anyone else who doesn't believe in it either would be screwed.

Pretending to know what happens after you die, in my eyes is ridiculous. I haven't died and came back. I've never met anyone who's done that. We can only gather information and put it together. And there are so many conflicting ideas on what that is, it's almost amazing anyone believes in anything at all.

As for the gay and nambla stuff, I won't get into that. I'm not in the mood to get into a legal discussion. But I have a very controversial opinion of nambla, that I don't really want to fight about cause it'll probably get this post closed.

I read so much stuff I'm not sure if I had anything else to comment on. But as I'm a fan of Sci-Fi humor, I still don't see how it's any more ridiculous that mice did indeed have our planet and life manufactured by another planet that makes planets for sale, then a great diety created us. Or that Mice and dolphins are also smarter then us ^.~ I <3 Douglas Adams

[Dyn]

Pretending to know what happens after you die, in my eyes is ridiculous. I haven't died and came back. I've never met anyone who's done that. We can only gather information and put it together. And there are so many conflicting ideas on what that is, it's almost amazing anyone believes in anything at all.

Right, we don't really know. That's why even the most religous people don't want to die. We're not actually sure what it's going to be like. I've never met anyone to take a two-week vacation and come back and said "That was freakin' awesome! Virgins and wine everywhere!"

My dad was about to go to Vietnam when he got violetly sick and died on the table...

They brought him back. And the most he could describe was "the tunnel" that most people describe when they have a L-a-D experience. But I know noone who's ever gotten to the end.

[Ramza]

I suppose I'm guilty of name-calling only in the same sense that Jenner is by talking about the hypocrisy and ignorance of "those against gay marriage." Well, no, even then I might assert that I am less guilty, because "those against gay marriage" includes all types of people, but "the cold-hearted atheist" does not assert that all atheists are cold-hearted. I think. Well, anyway...

Regarding my comment about recognizing the need for grace and redemption, my point is that even people CONFUSED about what PARTICULAR religion is important (or even if religion is important), even they should recognize the need for the things I mentioned. That may or may not require Christianity; it may or may not require religion in general. I wasn't forcing my religion on anybody.

And when I say "the cold-hearted atheist", I was not saying that all atheists are cold-hearted. From that statement, the most you can infer is that I believe that somewhere out there, there is at least one "cold-hearted atheist" that I have met and can speak of. And yes, I have met at least one. I didn't say that just any atheist is cold-hearted. That's pretty silly. If you took offense to it, apologize to yourself for reading into it, because I didn't call you cold-hearted, and furthermore I don't think you're coldhearted. Regardless, I'm not apologizing; this is just one of the pitfalls of the internet.

Speaking of...

To whoever said the thing about "tone" on the internet, I appreciate you saying so. If I come off as this pissed-off self-righteous conservative bastard who sees things only his way and wants everyone else to change to his way or else die, it's because people are placing that tone on my words, because such extreme examples are easily found in the media (be it factual news or fictional stories, such as movies). If you took the time to read my first post, anyway, you'd know that I for one have hopes that no one suffer because they believe differently from me. That's really not the point of what I'm saying *at all*.

Let's see, where else was I misunderstood...

Oh yes, the Nambla thing.

I wasn't using Nambla to argue against homosexuality PER SE...I was specifically arguing against Jenner's blanket statement, which I don't think was a good one at all. I wasn't attacking a whole worldview or side of a belief, but merely one simple blanket statement. According to that statement, which included *self-defined rights* as a part of it, Nambla ought to be a-okay to not just think and speak about intergenerational homosexual sex but also act, so long as it would be true that the boys that sleep with them are indeed not manipulated into sex but are "mutually consenting" -- (they actually have a good argument going for them, and it traces back to the days of Plato...read some Plato, find out how his culture was back in the day).

I cannot emphasize this enough: the Nambla example isn't in any relevant way a part of my argument against homosexual marriage. The real argument, in the legal sense, lies in what the constitution has kept defined as "marriage" as a term. Someone in an earlier post already outlined the basics behind it, but that's my basic point. If the government is keen on giving benefits to "couples" who seem to be in a permanent living arrangement, then let's give those couples a "civil union" with benefits! In our society, it's not like those united in a "civil union" are statistically any less stable than "marriage".

That said, my other argument is that "marriage" exists not only in a legal sense but also in a religious sense. As we speak, churches (and other religious organizations) across the board in are duking it out over whether or not "God honors homosexual marriage." Some say yes, many say no. That goes for plenty of religions, not just Christianity. I have plenty of reasons to believe that homosexuality is not just immoral but doesn't make sense in the natural order of things: that is, it is unnatural. But, in the same way that I can't force someone to not drink excessive amounts of alcohol, I can't force someone to not have sex with someone of the same gender. I understand that's not the business of law. I'm not "out to get" homosexuals. I don't have a fear of them, though I recognize that plenty of quote unquote "conservative" people do, and are using religion as a tool to mess them up. I too think that's wrong, don't mistake what side I'm on regarding that scuffle.

But can I ask homosexuals to respect the overwhelming majority of religious belief that says that marriage is, by definition, one that is designed for procreation (i.e. one man plus one woman)? I don't see how that's unreasonable. They're asking for a redefinition of marriage, and it would seem to me that that is stepping outside of all sorts of boundaries, including legal ones.

Finally, let it be known that I am not at all ready or anxious to begin a flame war. That people would assert that I am "the cause" of a topic-locking because I have a strong opinion in one direction is absurd. I did not explicitly name-call when I talked about people whining, blubbering, or being cold-hearted. I did not attack homosexuals, or people of any other religion. So far, the only thing I have come up against aggressively was one blanket statement (that I quoted, for a reason) made by Jenner. And even then, I'm not attacking Jenner, but rather one statement that I asked to be retracted because I saw it as illogical and generally ridiculous.

Ramza

[GhaleonOne]

Just as a side note, I think people misunderstood where Ramza was coming from, which he's clearly stated why. I wanted to wait and see his response before personally responding though. And honestly, Jenner, your comments that he responded to rather annoyed me too, as they came off as extremely blanketed with no support other than your opinion. It came off as "You don't agree with me? Then -Fatal Hopper- you." You came back and made a good solid post on the reply, but the first comment was irrational and harsh by the way you blanketed it.

For whoever it was that said those against homosexual marriage are afraid of gays, I seriously disagree with that. I'm not sure I agree with homosexual marriage (currently I'm against it based on what I HAVE studied, but until I study the issue a little more I won't make a concrete decision one way or another, and yes, I welcome all arguments to and for the issue), but I'm certainly not "afraid" of a homosexual. In fact, I consider Eric a great friend. And for those that say all gays go to hell (it's been an issue up there, specifically towards Eric), I seriously disagree with that. In fact, speaking of Eric personally, having talked with him over the years, and knowing where he's at in his own faith and beliefs, I can say with a safe assurance that I truly belief when he dies, he will be in heaven with God. The homosexuality issue matters not.

Speaking of Eric, I hope he reads this soon. I think he'd add a lot to the discussions going on here.

[Ramza]

No one need reply to this, I just realized that I came in here just by responding to various tangents about heaven/hell and homosexuality. I never even answered the original question! Shame on me.

So, do I believe in God? Yes. Why?

When wrestling with this in my own mind, my immediate conclusion is "why not?" I have nearly every reason to believe that some "divine" power created the world.

Peter Kreeft's "Making Sense of Suffering" gives a list of about 26 "good guesses" as to why there is a God, and who God would be, based on the works and thoughts of men as well as the objective observations we have made of nature (be it biology, the way things work here on earth, or astronomy/cosmology, studying the entire universe and its history).

For those interested in the cosmology debate (it should be discussed MUCH more than it is), most astronomy/physics folk believe that God (or something LIKE what we consider God) must have created the entire universe. Phrases such as "intelligent design" and "fine-tuned universe" are common in this debate. The only way to imagine the universe without a creator, they say, is to imagine that there are an infinite number of universes, out of which we are only one, and we have no way of accessing these other universes. As a result, some physicists (and metaphysicists) have jumped ship and claimed wholeheartedly this "multiverse" theory so that they can continue to adamantly deny the existence (or previous existence) of a Creator/God. It's all very interesting.

Check it out some time if you get the chance. I have books and online articles about it if anyone's interested. It's actually a raging debate that continues to get more hard evidence as people "search the stars" so to speak.

Ramza

[Jenner]

Responding in parts:

That said, my other argument is that "marriage" exists not only in a legal sense but also in a religious sense.

The ancestry of marriage has been historically traced back to the days of slavery. A father would sell his daughter or son to a man for a fee. Later, that fee became a dowry, and as Christianity and Catholicism spread the trade became more ceremonial. However, to this day, Marriage still continues to be, in essence, little more then a melodramatic legal buisness contract between two people.

I have plenty of reasons to believe that homosexuality is not just immoral but doesn't make sense in the natural order of things: that is, it is unnatural....ask homosexuals to respect the overwhelming majority of religious belief that says that marriage is, by definition, one that is designed for procreation (i.e. one man plus one woman)? I don't see how that's unreasonable.

Marriage is not, by design, a tool expressly for procreation. If such were the case then Married couples would not get all the benefits they get as far as rights and tax breaks. Marriage is, in fact, approached by the government the same way a business is approached. The concept that the purpose of marriage is primarily for reproduction is a false assumption. If such were the case opposite-sex couples who could not have children, such as older couples or those who are infertile, would also be barred from marrying.

But I am glad to see you typing with more tolerance and more of an "open-minded" approach, even if you're still condemning with flawed rationality.

As far as you attacking my statement, I take no offense. You over-defined my statement beyond what it was meant to be.

Just as Homosexuals, as Americans, have the right to get married.
NAMBLA, as an organization, has the right to gather and express their beliefs.

However, homosexuals are adults capable of making their own decisions.
Children are young and foolish, often seeking attention and praise in the wrong places.

Child Protection laws are in effect because children are too young, innocent, and trusting to know better.

There is no legitimate legal reason to have anti-sodomy laws instated that do not disclude consenting adults. Men who force themselves on other men can be charged with sexual abuse... Sodomy laws are redundant.

And honestly, Jenner, your comments that he responded to rather annoyed me too, as they came off as extremely blanketed with no support other than your opinion. It came off as "You don't agree with me? Then -Fatal Hopper- you." You came back and made a good solid post on the reply, but the first comment was irrational and harsh by the way you blanketed it.

Hey man, you go ahead and think I blanketed. I would have elaborated save for the fact that I thought the unspoken comparisons would be obvious to guess considering all the crap that's going on lately. Also I have a hard time thinking and focusing and forget crap. My original post may have appeared to be little more them empty finger-pointing accusations and I'll admit they were terribly vague. But, if you were annoyed and offended it probably hit a nerve and at least held some grain of truth. There honestly are too many people out there who do things in the name of Christianity that taint the meaning of it.

Like, for example, those crazy people that bomb abortion clinics. They have the right to want to blow them up, but blowing them up is still illegal. They're not charged with "Excessively Fanatical Expression of Religious Beliefs" they're charged with "terrorism", "destruction of property" and "endangerment" or something. There is no spicific law banning the bombing of abortion clinics.

But eh, I apologize that you got pissed. It doesn't make it not true, or not happening... but I wish it did.

[drumlord]

Up until the past century (and arguably in a more subtle way through today), people commonly married for reasons of moving their respective families up in the world. It was quite common to have a mistress on the side who was your actual love (or perhaps just to have some fun with). In modern sense, you get married for love and many STILL have a mistress on the side. But it's gotten easier to get divorced so you see people getting remarried a lot more often.

Also, there's really nothing inherantly special, sacred, or long-lasting about a marriage. Whether you seal the deal, become common law married, or simply are lifelong friends, what marriage truly comes down to is love between two people. And it's up to those two people to constantly work at the relationship for the rest of their lives. It's that work that shows your true love. The fact that over 50% of marriages end in divorce (and I'd be willing to bet many of the remaining aren't very happy marriages anyway; many people don't divorce for religious or various other reasons) shows just how poor straight people can be in a relationship.

Edit: Also, I'm guessing I'm one of the only if not the only married person on this board. So take that into perspective if you choose.

[Ramza]

There is no legitimate legal reason to have anti-sodomy laws instated that do not disclude consenting adults. Men who force themselves on other men can be charged with sexual abuse... Sodomy laws are redundant.

I agree, they are redundant. I remember the "conservative right" getting pissy about this law being removed, but I was sort of like, "uhh...why get mad? It is sort of a useless law."

Jenner, perhaps I did over-generalize your statement, but that's likely because it was the sort of statement that allows for that sort of thing. I was warning you specifically NOT to make those sort of statements, so that people do not make that mistake. I wasn't pissed, I just wanted to see you refine the statement. And now you have, so no worries.

Regarding the folks that bomb abortion clinics: I just don't understand them. They've forgotten one of the most common principles of natural law: do not do evil that good may result (this principle is one of the big ones used by pacifists in general). Sometimes, good does result despite people's evil, but I'm pretty sure that bombing abortion clinics has brought zero good, and lots of evil. Just my thoughts about that topic, since it was brought up.

Edit: Also, I'm guessing I'm one of the only if not the only married person on this board. So take that into perspective if you choose.

Well, I'm getting married in five months and ten days (that's New Year's Eve). So the issue is somewhat relevant to me too, as I'd like to know exactly what sort of contract I'm entering into, legal, religious, or otherwise.

Finally, I don't think I'm "typing" more open-mindedly; you've just seen more of me in general, and are recognizing that I'm not who you thought I was. I haven't gone out of my way to say things to please anyone, I've just continued to say as I believe and as I believe should be said on this board.

Ramza

[Coley Lou]

Rich, you're married!? WTF? You were my first fake boyfriend /cry How am i supposed to show you my mouth talents now?? I still have those "photos" ^.~

As for the anti-sodomy laws, etc. We actually studied a few cases like these last semester. It was a long and interesting debate. But then again it's still legal to shoot Mormons in Missouri, and it's illegal to worry a black squirel here in Council Bluffs, Iowa (that actually still is very illegal @_o) But anyway if sodomy is ilegal here, I'm going to jail.. and I'm straight... Ahhh TMI!

I'm so tempted to get into a discusion about "pedo" Since I have friends who are into "loli" XD but I don't think that'd be wise while I'm at work.

[drumlord]

Ramza: congrats on teh marrying. I've been married for over a year now. If you haven't made one yet (or even if you have), do a registry at Williams Sonoma and put all-clad pots, pans, and whatnot. That -Dragon Diamond- is hot and will last you FOREVER (I can at least vouch for a year) Also, any other dinner or cookware get from there. They have the best stuff of any store and despite the expense, people are willing to get them for you.

On sodomy laws, my state, Rhode Island, got rid of our anti-sodomy law several years back. Ours was so strict, you really couldn't do much of anything.

[GhaleonOne]

http://www.dumblaws.com/

Hah, Coley, are you the one that showed me this originally? There are some classic ones. One of the laws in Wichita downtown at a specific intersection states you have to get out of your car and fire three shots into the air with your shotgun.

[Coley Lou]

Nope I didn't, but that's hillarious! I wonder what happens if you really did that. Would you get in trouble? I mean obviously you'd get in trouble for shooting a mormon, because well it's ilegal to shoot people in general. But that's hillarious