100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: If... | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Okay so are you trying to make sense there? Leaving the rest alone because it doesn't make sense and is not even relevant if I do understand what little I think I might. Not allowing gay marriage is judgment of those who wish it. Judgment and restriction to be exact.
If religious folks KNOW that sinners are going to be judged, they really would relax a bit and allow adults of age and sound mind marry if they so choose. So I have to discern from this that the religious do not trust that their god will do the right thing so they believe they have to do his/her/it's job. Which makes their devotion kinda weak. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Okay so are you trying to make sense there? Leaving the rest alone because it doesn't make sense and is not even relevant if I do understand what little I think I might. Not allowing gay marriage is judgment of those who wish it. Judgment and restriction to be exact. And not allowing siblings to marry, or not allowing a 14 year old to marry an adult is judgement and restriction. Why can you chose what ages are allowed to marry and I'm NOT allowed to chose what mixture of sexes can marry? If religious folks KNOW that sinners are going to be judged, they really would relax a bit and allow adults of age and sound mind marry if they so choose. If law-abiding citizens KNOW that criminals are going to be judged, they really would relax a bit and allow them to commit criminal acts. So I have to discern from this that the religious do not trust that their god will do the right thing so they believe they have to do his/her/it's job. Which makes their devotion kinda weak. LOL! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Dragoness
on
Sat 08/28/10 07:01 PM
|
|
Okay so are you trying to make sense there? Leaving the rest alone because it doesn't make sense and is not even relevant if I do understand what little I think I might. Not allowing gay marriage is judgment of those who wish it. Judgment and restriction to be exact. And not allowing siblings to marry, or not allowing a 14 year old to marry an adult is judgement and restriction. Why can you chose what ages are allowed to marry and I'm NOT allowed to chose what mixture of sexes can marry? If religious folks KNOW that sinners are going to be judged, they really would relax a bit and allow adults of age and sound mind marry if they so choose. If law-abiding citizens KNOW that criminals are going to be judged, they really would relax a bit and allow them to commit criminal acts. So I have to discern from this that the religious do not trust that their god will do the right thing so they believe they have to do his/her/it's job. Which makes their devotion kinda weak. LOL! I never chose who can marry. So I don't know what you are talking about. The states make the laws on the age of marriage in their state. They also say how close in relation they can be. There is no criminal act being discussed here. So you can take that to the appropriate thread. It still comes across as if the religious do not trust their god to do what they think he will do so they are being weak in their devotion to their god. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Okay so are you trying to make sense there? Leaving the rest alone because it doesn't make sense and is not even relevant if I do understand what little I think I might. Not allowing gay marriage is judgment of those who wish it. Judgment and restriction to be exact. And not allowing siblings to marry, or not allowing a 14 year old to marry an adult is judgement and restriction. Why can you chose what ages are allowed to marry and I'm NOT allowed to chose what mixture of sexes can marry? If religious folks KNOW that sinners are going to be judged, they really would relax a bit and allow adults of age and sound mind marry if they so choose. If law-abiding citizens KNOW that criminals are going to be judged, they really would relax a bit and allow them to commit criminal acts. So I have to discern from this that the religious do not trust that their god will do the right thing so they believe they have to do his/her/it's job. Which makes their devotion kinda weak. LOL! I never chose who can marry. So I don't know what you are talking about. The states make the laws on the age of marriage in their state. They also say how close in relation they can be. There is not criminal act being discussed here. So you can take that to the appropriate thread. It still comes across as if the religious do not trust their god to do what they think he will do so they are being weak in their devotion to their god. So you're saying there is no law against gay marriage? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are no laws against gay marriage.
There are laws specifying who can marry be male and female. Which needs to be changed. Any adults of sound mind and of age should be able to marry. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Dragoness
on
Sat 08/28/10 07:08 PM
|
|
Gays currently get married. It is not recognized by the state though.
I have attended the ceremonies. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So have we not hashed this to the point of returning to the beginning question which was "If god is the judge of man then why don't the religious trust god to judge people?" It is he/she/it's job after all is it not? So in the case of gay marriage, since the religious do not have a monopoly on marriage, we should allow any adult to marry whoever they want as long as both are of sound mind and of age, right? Perhaps there is an element of self-righteousness involved. However, being an atheist I can only respond to the question based on a little research. Below is something intresting I found in my research which I'll make connections to later in my post. http://mb-soft.com/public3/arroganc.html It has become common that modern Christians, especially in America, have come to believe that they have absolute and total understanding of every possible aspect of Christian Faith, including every detail. IF any person could actually ever have such absolute and complete knowledge, that means that person either has or believes he/she has an entire and perfect understanding of the Plan of God for man. Such an attitude indicates a belief that the person is as smart as the Lord is, to so completely understand a Plan that has eluded billions of Christians before them, including many who spent their entire lives attempting to understand it. That is essentially the very definition of Arrogance, of an absolute smugness in one's own perfection that no one is allowed to ever question any aspect of it! C Johnson, Pastor, A Christ Walk Church This page - - Christian Arrogance, Self-Righteousness - - is at http://mb-soft.com/public3/arroganc.html This subject presentation was last updated on 01/25/2010 23:56:10 Matthew 25:31-46 Describes what it means to do righteous work, the deeds of righteousness. All of these acts are PRO actions, meaning they represent something beneficial to individuals’ immediate health and well-being. PRO actions are a respectful response to resolve or attend to the problems, worries, and inadequacies that afflict others - acts like caring for the sick, feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, protecting the weak, and clothing the poor. According to that prescription you can’t go wrong – but through a self-righteous attitude people may become arrogant and adopt deeds that serve self-righteous ends or ambition. Or perhaps as, creative pointed out, this is an unconscious ‘covert dishonesty’ which leads to actions that stem from the unrecognized arrogance of believing of ones own righteousness. These acts tend to be CON actions, in which ‘judgment’ plays a role and prohibitions on the actions of others are promoted. As I understand it, that kind of righteousness belongs only to God. Humans cannot be righteous, as only God is righteous, but people can perform individual acts of righteousness. I can now connect my thought process with the quote above. Many Christians, some in these threads, believe that they have ‘perfectly’ attained an understanding of scripture and that their understanding is so complete that they know the mind, and will, and plan of God for all humanity. The next step is that they feel righteous in passing judgments which can lead to CON Actions. In effect, the people who act on their judgments in CON ways are themselves deciding the fate of people on behalf of God or more accurately, in place of God – that is not only hypocrisy, it is also arrogant. ‘To me’ that is exactly what scripture warns followers to guard against. It is not a righteous behavior because it does not come from a place righteousness, only God is righteous and thus only God can judge. To intercede in the name of righteousness is equivalent to acting in place of God – God is righteous but the righteous acts of people are just individual acts which in and of themselves do not make a person righteous, they do not even guarantee salvation. But when those acts, in the name righteousness, take form, they can guarantee disfavor from the only source of true righteousness. Apparently many Christians take that about as seriously as any other atheist. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Okay so are you trying to make sense there? Leaving the rest alone because it doesn't make sense and is not even relevant if I do understand what little I think I might. Not allowing gay marriage is judgment of those who wish it. Judgment and restriction to be exact. And not allowing siblings to marry, or not allowing a 14 year old to marry an adult is judgement and restriction. Why can you chose what ages are allowed to marry and I'm NOT allowed to chose what mixture of sexes can marry? If religious folks KNOW that sinners are going to be judged, they really would relax a bit and allow adults of age and sound mind marry if they so choose. If law-abiding citizens KNOW that criminals are going to be judged, they really would relax a bit and allow them to commit criminal acts. So I have to discern from this that the religious do not trust that their god will do the right thing so they believe they have to do his/her/it's job. Which makes their devotion kinda weak. LOL! I never chose who can marry. So I don't know what you are talking about. The states make the laws on the age of marriage in their state. They also say how close in relation they can be. There is not criminal act being discussed here. So you can take that to the appropriate thread. It still comes across as if the religious do not trust their god to do what they think he will do so they are being weak in their devotion to their god. So you're saying there is no law against gay marriage? You are being rude and obnoxious. Dragoness is attempting to focus the conversation on one aspect and you have yet to address it. Perhaps you have trouble understanding what an ethical approach to a discussion really is - but look it up in a dictionary somewhere, and then look up why Hitler's policy was supported by the German people and then ask yourself what questions you have about incest and look those up too. Finally, check out how society has changed in the last hundred years and draw your own conclusions about 14 year olds marrying. Then come back with something more substantial from which to argue your postions, because at the moment you are only offering insolence and doing with the greatest lack of respect.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Redy.
Trying to get the thread back on track here. It is frustrating I know. I guess I shouldn't expect logical from an illogical ideology though. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If everyone has to answer to their god in the end, why do we need the moral police (otherwise referred to as the religious) on this planet to make sure everyone is doing what they think they should be doing? They don't trust god to do the judging in the end properly? They believe they are gods themselves? What is it? For example: Gay marriage. If gay folks have to answer to their god in the end, why make such a big deal out of other folks marrying whoever they want? If people have to answer to their god for what they do, why do the religious make life hell on earth for all of us in the name of their god when every one has to face their own god anyway? Seems ridiculous and terribly annoying to me. On the note of marriage why do most of the people in support of gay marriage using the thought that if people love each other they should be able to marry, why do they oppose bigamy |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Dragoness
on
Sat 08/28/10 10:12 PM
|
|
If everyone has to answer to their god in the end, why do we need the moral police (otherwise referred to as the religious) on this planet to make sure everyone is doing what they think they should be doing? They don't trust god to do the judging in the end properly? They believe they are gods themselves? What is it? For example: Gay marriage. If gay folks have to answer to their god in the end, why make such a big deal out of other folks marrying whoever they want? If people have to answer to their god for what they do, why do the religious make life hell on earth for all of us in the name of their god when every one has to face their own god anyway? Seems ridiculous and terribly annoying to me. On the note of marriage why do most of the people in support of gay marriage using the thought that if people love each other they should be able to marry, why do they oppose bigamy I don't. Marry as many as you want. As long as they are of age and sound mind, I have no issue with it. Who am I to tell other adults what to do in their love life? God? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
well Dragoness the question is what should we do in our love life?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So have we not hashed this to the point of returning to the beginning question which was "If god is the judge of man then why don't the religious trust god to judge people?" It is he/she/it's job after all is it not? So in the case of gay marriage, since the religious do not have a monopoly on marriage, we should allow any adult to marry whoever they want as long as both are of sound mind and of age, right? Perhaps there is an element of self-righteousness involved. However, being an atheist I can only respond to the question based on a little research. Below is something intresting I found in my research which I'll make connections to later in my post. http://mb-soft.com/public3/arroganc.html It has become common that modern Christians, especially in America, have come to believe that they have absolute and total understanding of every possible aspect of Christian Faith, including every detail. IF any person could actually ever have such absolute and complete knowledge, that means that person either has or believes he/she has an entire and perfect understanding of the Plan of God for man. Such an attitude indicates a belief that the person is as smart as the Lord is, to so completely understand a Plan that has eluded billions of Christians before them, including many who spent their entire lives attempting to understand it. That is essentially the very definition of Arrogance, of an absolute smugness in one's own perfection that no one is allowed to ever question any aspect of it! C Johnson, Pastor, A Christ Walk Church This page - - Christian Arrogance, Self-Righteousness - - is at http://mb-soft.com/public3/arroganc.html This subject presentation was last updated on 01/25/2010 23:56:10 Matthew 25:31-46 Describes what it means to do righteous work, the deeds of righteousness. All of these acts are PRO actions, meaning they represent something beneficial to individuals’ immediate health and well-being. PRO actions are a respectful response to resolve or attend to the problems, worries, and inadequacies that afflict others - acts like caring for the sick, feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, protecting the weak, and clothing the poor. According to that prescription you can’t go wrong – but through a self-righteous attitude people may become arrogant and adopt deeds that serve self-righteous ends or ambition. Or perhaps as, creative pointed out, this is an unconscious ‘covert dishonesty’ which leads to actions that stem from the unrecognized arrogance of believing of ones own righteousness. These acts tend to be CON actions, in which ‘judgment’ plays a role and prohibitions on the actions of others are promoted. As I understand it, that kind of righteousness belongs only to God. Humans cannot be righteous, as only God is righteous, but people can perform individual acts of righteousness. I can now connect my thought process with the quote above. Many Christians, some in these threads, believe that they have ‘perfectly’ attained an understanding of scripture and that their understanding is so complete that they know the mind, and will, and plan of God for all humanity. The next step is that they feel righteous in passing judgments which can lead to CON Actions. In effect, the people who act on their judgments in CON ways are themselves deciding the fate of people on behalf of God or more accurately, in place of God – that is not only hypocrisy, it is also arrogant. ‘To me’ that is exactly what scripture warns followers to guard against. It is not a righteous behavior because it does not come from a place righteousness, only God is righteous and thus only God can judge. To intercede in the name of righteousness is equivalent to acting in place of God – God is righteous but the righteous acts of people are just individual acts which in and of themselves do not make a person righteous, they do not even guarantee salvation. But when those acts, in the name righteousness, take form, they can guarantee disfavor from the only source of true righteousness. Apparently many Christians take that about as seriously as any other atheist. Do you mean self-righteousness as in implying that other do NOT have "critical thought processes"? Or the self-righteousness of saying that others are "unreasonable and irrational" when their errors are pointed out ? Or what about hypocrisy? Kinda like citing "current laws" as a reason to keep incestuous marriage illegal and ignoring the laws that prohibit gay marriage? What about the hypocrisy of berating another poster for voicing their opinion on gay marriage while you voice your opinion against underage sex? And then there's the hypocrisy of judging someone as "unrighteous" for judging another! What about the arrogance of assuming that someone who doesn't agree with you is only doing so because of religious beliefs? Rude and obnoxious? OK, I can do that... Now pay close attention, it's imperative that you use your "hypocritical thought process". It's not hard to do, all you have to do is continue what your doing now. I DOUBLE DOG DARE YA!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If everyone has to answer to their god in the end, why do we need the moral police (otherwise referred to as the religious) on this planet to make sure everyone is doing what they think they should be doing? They don't trust god to do the judging in the end properly? They believe they are gods themselves? What is it? For example: Gay marriage. If gay folks have to answer to their god in the end, why make such a big deal out of other folks marrying whoever they want? If people have to answer to their god for what they do, why do the religious make life hell on earth for all of us in the name of their god when every one has to face their own god anyway? Seems ridiculous and terribly annoying to me. On the note of marriage why do most of the people in support of gay marriage using the thought that if people love each other they should be able to marry, why do they oppose bigamy I don't. Marry as many as you want. As long as they are of age and sound mind, I have no issue with it. Who am I to tell other adults what to do in their love life? God? Obviously you think you have the same authority... "As long as they are of age and sound mind, I have no issue with it." So only you get to decide who is allowed to marry? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
thanks peter pan a point I was trying to make is everyone has morals somewhere and if it breaks their morals its wrong. it has nothing to do with religion. just like people dont care about discrimination unless they are part of or affected by the group that is being discriminated against
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
soldier wrote: On the note of marriage why do most of the people in support of gay marriage using the thought that if people love each other they should be able to marry, why do they oppose bigamy dragoness: I don't. Marry as many as you want. As long as they are of age and sound mind, I have no issue with it. Who am I to tell other adults what to do in their love life? Pan responds: Obviously you think you have the same authority... "As long as they are of age and sound mind, I have no issue with it." So only you get to decide who is allowed to marry? There is no way to draw that conclusion from what was written without presupposing a whole slew of other things. "As long as one is of age" has empirical grounding and is a valid element to be considered here regarding what is to be called acceptable behavior. We know that brain development, particularly regarding the PFC, plays the key role in volitional capability, and therefore being able to make good choices depends largely upon one's physiological development and how well they identify, recognize, and deal with their own emotions. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
creativesoul
on
Sat 08/28/10 11:54 PM
|
|
just like people dont care about discrimination unless they are part of or affected by the group that is being discriminated against That's false. I am certainly not gay, black, asian, transexual, or a woman. I care about discrimination involving all of those groups, as well as others left unmentioned. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
creativesoul
on
Sun 08/29/10 02:02 AM
|
|
just like people dont care about discrimination unless they are part of or affected by the group that is being discriminated against As shown already, the above is not necessarily true, I am an exception and certainly not the only one. That being the case, it very well could be true about some... If the above is true of some people, then it must follow that those who discriminate against others do not care about them. If one does not care about another then they most certainly should not have any position of power over them. Therefore all people who discriminate should not be employers, government officials, manufacturers, law makers, or any other position which would give them the ability to take action which effects/affects someone/anyone who they do not care about. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
well Dragoness the question is what should we do in our love life? Well, as the OP suggests, some folks want to create a formal union through the legal process of marriage (specified as gay marriage in the OP). They seek to unite their families and all their loved ones through their union. Just as joining their families and circle of friends provides security and a social safety net, the legal process also provides a huge amount of legal precedent that serves to protect the people involved with the union (the families). Outside of the issue with marriage, when it comes to “our love life”, there are some legal limitations to our freedoms and if you wish to discuss them individually by contrasting the current law with religious morality and other ethical concerns about each topic you are welcome to do so - BY TOPIC. But they cannot all be lumped into one single category because each argument has its own precedent, or independent reasons, morally and ethically, for the legal limitations that are in place. That means that we cannot compare each of the issues to each other, they are not the same. a point I was trying to make is everyone has morals somewhere and if it breaks their morals its wrong. it has nothing to do with religion. This is a given and that is what the OP is attempting to discuss. Not just what are the moral or ethical views of individuals are, but what reasoning, logic, or code is being used to substantiate the view. SPECIFICALLY, in the case of religion, the OP is asking why people think they can judge others outside their religious community, effectively discriminating against those others, by imposing a religious code on non-believers, especially when that very same code forbids the judging of others. So the OP seems to be asking, if God is the only righteous and final judge of individual deeds, than by what right are believers imposing their judgement of right and wrong on the otherwise not harmful actions of OTHER individuals? That doesn’t mean that non-religious posters do not have morals or opinions and those are points of valid discussion as well. However, you will be asked to substantiate or present a foundation of something other than opinion that leads you to the value you have placed on your moral conviction. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Dragoness
on
Sun 08/29/10 09:32 AM
|
|
If everyone has to answer to their god in the end, why do we need the moral police (otherwise referred to as the religious) on this planet to make sure everyone is doing what they think they should be doing? They don't trust god to do the judging in the end properly? They believe they are gods themselves? What is it? For example: Gay marriage. If gay folks have to answer to their god in the end, why make such a big deal out of other folks marrying whoever they want? If people have to answer to their god for what they do, why do the religious make life hell on earth for all of us in the name of their god when every one has to face their own god anyway? Seems ridiculous and terribly annoying to me. On the note of marriage why do most of the people in support of gay marriage using the thought that if people love each other they should be able to marry, why do they oppose bigamy I don't. Marry as many as you want. As long as they are of age and sound mind, I have no issue with it. Who am I to tell other adults what to do in their love life? God? Obviously you think you have the same authority... "As long as they are of age and sound mind, I have no issue with it." So only you get to decide who is allowed to marry? Obviously I do not think I have the same authority. The law that has been agreed upon is that authority and it is a good law, I agree. Age and sound mind should be considered before marriage is allowed by the state. People can be taken advantage of if we do not follow this law. And you don't make any sense man 
|
|
|
|
|
