Is Christianity due for a government-imposed Reformation?

[lilpixieofterror]

And, again, you are chastising me for commenting that marriage has changed over time while offering up ways it has changed.

Lovely.

Sorry jaecp, only the concept of how these things are done has changed over time or do you have a hard time paying attention? The concepts still remain; just how the concept is carried out has changed. I came into my marriage with something, while women living centuries before didn't, so thus the differences in how the concept is carried out. Do you understand that?

I've told you before that I make you spell out your arguments so that its on record

Nah, you're just dumb and want everything explained to you, in every tiny detail because you would rather nitpick then deal with the substance of the argument. Thus one of the reasons I often just avoid your post because you're a waste of time bothering with.

Interesting

And my point is still avoided; those societies did not call homosexual conduct a marriage. The examples I can think of still got married to women and still had children by women. Perhaps though, you'll bring forth an example or two or are you just here to blow out hot air?

Enlighten me.

Plato, Aquinas, and Aristotle themselves couldn't enlighten you if they were given 1,000 years, but try this. Prove it or is that beyond your mental capacity?

Cannot be made into law solely on the basis of it being your religious belief. That is the big thing here. We live in a plural society. We do not legislate what religion people have to follow.

Funny... I always thought that many people saw murder as wrong based on their religious beliefs. In fact, one can say the same about stealing, so I guess one shouldn't make those into law either? Really Jaecp, why can't a Christian make what they believe is right, into law, but you can? Let me guess, it is because you have made only beliefs that are not religious the only ones that can be made into law and all others, are not? Let us suppose that somebody thinks murder is wrong based upon their religious beliefs, are they not allowed to put their beliefs in practice, if others vote on the issue and decided too?

There are other arguments for why the things you listed are wrong based upon the idea's of the social contract, idea's that were quite popular among the founders. Neither Christians, nor jews, invented the idea of murder being wrong. It's something people figured out pretty easily. Societies that have rampant murder aren't exactly going to grow. The code of hammurabi, circa 1772 bc, for example.

Which is irrelevant to your argument since it doesn't matter what some people think, you said people cannot make X into law based on their religious beliefs. Many people think murder or stealing is wrong, based upon their religious beliefs and some think morality comes from the nature of God. So that means people that believe these things are not allowed making anything they believe as moral, into law? It is amazing to watch you make up excuses because I don't care what other people think, I care what each person thinks and since some base their morality on their religious beliefs, you would argue they cannot even attempt to make something moral based on their religious beliefs. Well, I guess the freedom to speak what you want and to bring forth ideas you'd like to be made into laws is only allowed if you happen to agree with jaecp. So much for the land of the free...

That murder, stealing, rape, etc are wrong is stuff that we can figure out for ourselves and appealing to god for why that is true hasn't been required for a long, long time.

Too bad some people make appeals to God about these things and following your logic, they cannot attempt to make these things into law. What's the problem, don't like where your logic leads?

[Cow Poke]

More like "celebrate the sin".

In many cases, very much so.

[Jaecp]

Sorry jaecp, only the concept of how these things are done has changed over time or do you have a hard time paying attention? The concepts still remain; just how the concept is carried out has changed. I came into my marriage with something, while women living centuries before didn't, so thus the differences in how the concept is carried out. Do you understand that?

*yawn*

Get back to me when you aren't trying to split hairs over semantics and have something substantive to say

Nah, you're just dumb and want everything explained to you, in every tiny detail because you would rather nitpick then deal with the substance of the argument. Thus one of the reasons I often just avoid your post because you're a waste of time bothering with.

Says the person who was just trying to nitpick? Yeesh. And no, I'll tell you again like I told you before. I want the stuff you propose stated clearly because you play fast and loose and I want you on the level.

And my point is still avoided; those societies did not call homosexual conduct a marriage. The examples I can think of still got married to women and still had children by women. Perhaps though, you'll bring forth an example or two or are you just here to blow out hot air?

Already explained how they didn't understand that there were multiple orientations.

Plato, Aquinas, and Aristotle themselves couldn't enlighten you if they were given 1,000 years, but try this. Prove it or is that beyond your mental capacity?

*yawn*

You had two weeks to come up with a response and I get this? You're slipping.

Funny... I always thought that many people saw murder as wrong based on their religious beliefs. In fact, one can say the same about stealing, so I guess one shouldn't make those into law either? Really Jaecp, why can't a Christian make what they believe is right, into law, but you can? Let me guess, it is because you have made only beliefs that are not religious the only ones that can be made into law and all others, are not? Let us suppose that somebody thinks murder is wrong based upon their religious beliefs, are they not allowed to put their beliefs in practice, if others vote on the issue and decided too?

Solely.

Say it with me now, solely

You cannot base law solely off of religious belief. It's why stuff like proscriptions against murder and stealing are laws, but other stuff in the 10 commandments that are religious rules and not morals like observing the sabbath and coveting are not laws.

I don't know how many times I can emphasize this.

Which is irrelevant to your argument since it doesn't matter what some people think, you said people cannot make X into law based on their religious beliefs. Many people think murder or stealing is wrong, based upon their religious beliefs and some think morality comes from the nature of God. So that means people that believe these things are not allowed making anything they believe as moral, into law? It is amazing to watch you make up excuses because I don't care what other people think, I care what each person thinks and since some base their morality on their religious beliefs, you would argue they cannot even attempt to make something moral based on their religious beliefs. Well, I guess the freedom to speak what you want and to bring forth ideas you'd like to be made into laws is only allowed if you happen to agree with jaecp. So much for the land of the free...

That they think that doesn't matter when it comes to legislation. Proscriptions against murder and theft are in every successful society and this matters. It shows us that these rules don't require a god, they are products of human thinking. They are about how people realize that those things are wrong for a variety of reasons.

They are, of course, free to advocate for whatever they want. Laws that might get passed whose only justification is "because my religion says so" inevitably get struck down. Violations of the first amendment and all that. Thats why anti-gay groups try to find other reasons why gay marriage is bad. If "my religion says so" was reason enough for a law to be passed, they wouldn't need to bother.

Too bad some people make appeals to God about these things and following your logic, they cannot attempt to make these things into law. What's the problem, don't like where your logic leads?

Say it with me, nice and slow

Soooooolely

[lilpixieofterror]

*yawn*

Get back to me when you aren't trying to split hairs over semantics and have something substantive to say

So sayeth the same person that does the same thing. Come on now Jaecp, do not understand general principles are the same, with different ways to practice them are done?

Says the person who was just trying to nitpick? Yeesh. And no, I'll tell you again like I told you before. I want the stuff you propose stated clearly because you play fast and loose and I want you on the level.

Nah, you said something really really stupid and I decided to correct you and you're not happy that you can't refute a word I said, so you play your usual game of asking for all this evidence, while of course, your beliefs are taken as default and do not need any evidence to back up.

Already explained how they didn't understand that there were multiple orientations.

In other words, Jaecp makes more assertions without addressing a word said. Poor child, so frustrated that he can't back up his beliefs, with evidence, so he just throws up words without thinking. Yet you wonder why I insult you? It is easy, you deserve it.

*yawn*

You had two weeks to come up with a response and I get this? You're slipping.

I didn't read this until yesterday because you just are not interesting enough to keep up on and I do have a life.

Solely.

Say it with me now, solely

Awe, frustrated that your arguments are not as powerful as you thought they were? It's ok, I know you don't like being proved wrong and never said 'solely' until of course, your argument was exposed as being stupid and you tried to change it up. That's fine, I know you love to change things up without ever admitting you are wrong.

You cannot base law solely off of religious belief. It's why stuff like proscriptions against murder and stealing are laws, but other stuff in the 10 commandments that are religious rules and not morals like observing the sabbath and coveting are not laws.

And yet, little child, many people believe murder is wrong based solely off of religious beliefs and now you're saying, "BUT THERE ARE REASONS WE CAN COME UP WITH THAT ARE NOT RELIGIOUS!" as though that magically means that others believe and think like Jaecp does. Again, you're just too dumb to figure this stuff out, huh?

I don't know how many times I can emphasize this.

And yet, you ignore facts that some people do believe things are wrong solely based upon their religious beliefs and somehow, they can't do anything to make their beliefs into law, but you can. This is a free country Jaecp and they have as much of a right to try to make their beliefs law as you do or do you think only people who think and act like you can do that and everybody else must shut up and not try to?

That they think that doesn't matter when it comes to legislation. Proscriptions against murder and theft are in every successful society and this matters. It shows us that these rules don't require a god, they are products of human thinking. They are about how people realize that those things are wrong for a variety of reasons.

Too bad you didn't say that and now you're trying to change things up because you don't want to admit you're wrong like you always do. How funny. Sorry little boy, but not everybody thinks and reasons like you do and they may believe the same thing you do, based upon a DIFFERENT way of reaching that conclusion. Why can't they try to make their morality law?

They are, of course, free to advocate for whatever they want. Laws that might get passed whose only justification is "because my religion says so" inevitably get struck down. Violations of the first amendment and all that. Thats why anti-gay groups try to find other reasons why gay marriage is bad. If "my religion says so" was reason enough for a law to be passed, they wouldn't need to bother.

That is the point Jaecp and it is still quite revealing that you are changing up your arguments to something else when information is given to you that makes your first argument look dumb. Here is what you said at first:

It's about what we're basing stuff on. We don't legislate religious beliefs, laws that coincide with what is prescribed against by a specific religion need a secular basis as well to not violate the first amendment.

Nothing in there that says 'solely' at all, you just changed up your argument, without ever admitting your first one was wrong. How revealing...

Say it with me, nice and slow

Soooooolely

Too bad you didn't say that until your previous post. What, do you not think I know how to look back at past post and see what was said? Oh dear... yet again... you think those who disagree with you are stupid, huh?

[Nathan Poe]

Lot's of bold pronouncements from Nathan Poe in this thread about what is and isn't right, what is and isn't going to happen and what the church is and isn't going to do about it.

As a liberal agnostic I daresay he can makeup whatever rules he likes, apply them to anything he likes and feel utterly righteous (whoops, that's almost a religious word) about it.

You right, that is utterly religious of me, isn't it? I am deeply ashamed.

I make two predictions: One, gay marriage is going to happen -- and the Church is going to have to deal with that.

But unlike those who try so hard to tell others what they should do, I'm only offering predictions as to what they probably will do.

And I predict that the Church will deal with this inevitability when it comes -- it's in their own best interest to do so, and not from any outside government influence.

I could be wrong, of course but in the past, society has argued some pretty hot button topics such as slavery, women's suffrage, and the Civil Rights movement. And yes, those arguments spilled over into every aspect of society -- including the pulpit. Religious leaders argued both sides, using Scripture to support their case.

Now those areguments are settled -- anyone who thinks otherwise is mocked and belittled, not by the government, but by the people themselves. And you'd be hard pressed to find any church still on the losing side of those arguments.

Now, homosexuality is a different case, I'll grant you -- the Bible is more detailed on it than on suffrage and civil rights, and almost as much so as it is on slavery -- but my second prediction is that, maybe 40-50 years from now, people will do what they have done before.

Righteous? Perhaps -- but you're the one using that word as an insult. I'm not telling you what you should think -- you'll come around on your own.

[Jaecp]

On my way to my flight to china, won't be able to give a substantative response before then,

Here's the short version.

You're wrong, laughably so, and your comment about how you're able to read my old posts borders on self parody when your big argumentative point hinges on me using the word solely when I originally said you need a secular reason in addition to your religious one.

Know what that means? Means it can't be solely religious. Means your "gotcha" that you used no less than six times in your reply to me is a fairly on reading on you.

And, hey, I already explained the older conception of homosexuality weeks ago. Look it up if you want a refresher. Maybe when I get back on the 27th you'll have had time to write a reply that works because shooting from the hip isn't working for you

[lilpixieofterror]

On my way to my flight to china, won't be able to give a substantative response before then,

Here's the short version.

This should be entertaining.

You're wrong, laughably so, and your comment about how you're able to read my old posts borders on self parody when your big argumentative point hinges on me using the word solely when I originally said you need a secular reason in addition to your religious one.

And yet, nowhere was solely used anywhere in your past post and it was ONLY added in, when it became clear that you couldn't back your argument up with anything more than an assertion because as always, you twist and twist to avoid admitting you are wrong. What, do you not think I know how to go back and read your past post? Here is what you first said:

If that is what you believe, then practice what you believe, the government isn't stopping you, just don't try to force others to practice what you believe,or what they don't believe.

Yet it is ok to force people to believe gay marriage is right (even when not everybody is religious who is opposed to gay marriage. Remember, California is among the least religious states in the country and they voted to make gay marriage illegal), but let us continue:

It's about what we're basing stuff on. We don't legislate religious beliefs, laws that coincide with what is prescribed against by a specific religion need a secular basis as well to not violate the first amendment.

It is amazing though how you changed up your argument, without of course, admitting you might have said too little, wasn't clear, etc, but you seem to want to always blame others for miscommunication. Nice and you wonder why I and others give you this sort of treatment. It is because you earn it with your attitude.

Know what that means? Means it can't be solely religious.

Sure, after you changed up your words to mean something else and never admitting you were wrong the first time. Anyway, they have as much of a right to do things as you do, rather you like it or not.

Means your "gotcha" that you used no less than six times in your reply to me is a fairly on reading on you.

Nah, my problem is your tendency to never admit you are wrong and blame others for your own faults. No where can I find in your response to Sparko that you might have not been clear enough, misspoke, etc. You just instead when with your usual holy then thou attitude and wonder why you get all the disrespect you earn.

And, hey, I already explained the older conception of homosexuality weeks ago. Look it up if you want a refresher. Maybe when I get back on the 27th you'll have had time to write a reply that works because shooting from the hip isn't working for you

Awe, poor Jaecp, he can't respond to it without drooling on the floor over it. Again, the fact one of the most liberal states in the nation voted against homosexual marriage seems to indicate it is not just the religious that have problems with it. The funny thing I remember in my school; those that bullied the gay kids or 'possible' gay kids themselves were about as much of a Christian as you were and some of the most homophobic people I know are non-religious. It isn't just religious people that have problems with homosexuality and gay marriage, many non-religious do too, yet the media has this tendency to paint it as only being religious people that do… funny how that works, huh?

[SarahB]

So sayeth the same person that does the same thing. Come on now Jaecp, do not understand general principles are the same, with different ways to practice them are done?

Sayeth the person who frequently questions others' reading comprehension.

In other words, Jaecp makes more assertions without addressing a word said.

You use that an awful lot. Do you think people actually believe you when you say it? I assume you don't care what people think, but how many do you think actually believe it?

Poor child, so frustrated that he can't back up his beliefs, with evidence, so he just throws up words without thinking.

That's clearly not true -- about Jaecp. It would seem to apply more to you, really. Why did you separate "with evidence"? Are you just throwing up without thinking?

Yet you wonder why I insult you?

Because you're frustrated?

It is easy, you deserve it.

Nah, you're just frustrated.

I didn't read this until yesterday because you just are not interesting enough to keep up on...

What did you get out of that for yourself? When you swallow a little portion of hate, do you feel a physical pleasure? Do you feel the presence of God?

...and I do have a life.

But what is life like for those around you?

Awe, frustrated that your arguments are not as powerful as you thought they were?

That would be "aww" not awe. You've been told this before.

It's ok, I know you don't like being proved wrong...

Where do you find yourself on the scale of "like being proved wrong"? Do you readily ask yourself if you could be wrong or do you automatically construct argument after argument against that possibility?

...and never said 'solely' until of course, your argument was exposed as being stupid and you tried to change it up.

Most reasonable readers, even those not dispassionate, would readily infer the unwritten solely. The argument was not exposed as stupid -- his, I mean.

You just look for any possible semantic twist of words and cling for dear life, don't you?

That's fine, I know you love to change things up without ever admitting you are wrong.

First, you don't "know" that, at all. Second, "change things up", where do you get that phraseology?

And yet, little child,...

There is no one more childish than you.

... many people believe murder is wrong based solely off of...

What a grammatical wreck you are.

...of religious beliefs and now you're saying, "BUT THERE ARE REASONS WE CAN COME UP WITH THAT ARE NOT RELIGIOUS!" as though that magically means that others believe and think like Jaecp does.

And you claim you have a 140 IQ!

Again, you're just too dumb to figure this stuff out, huh?


And yet, you ignore facts that some people do believe things are wrong solely based upon their religious beliefs and somehow, they can't do anything to make their beliefs into law, but you can. This is a free country Jaecp and they have as much of a right to try to make their beliefs law as you do or do you think only people who think and act like you can do that and everybody else must shut up and not try to?




Too bad you didn't say that and now you're trying to change things up because you don't want to admit you're wrong like you always do. How funny. Sorry little boy, but not everybody thinks and reasons like you do and they may believe the same thing you do, based upon a DIFFERENT way of reaching that conclusion. Why can't they try to make their morality law?



That is the point Jaecp and it is still quite revealing that you are changing up your arguments to something else when information is given to you that makes your first argument look dumb. Here is what you said at first:



Nothing in there that says 'solely' at all, you just changed up your argument, without ever admitting your first one was wrong. How revealing...




Too bad you didn't say that until your previous post. What, do you not think I know how to look back at past post and see what was said? Oh dear... yet again... you think those who disagree with you are stupid, huh?

Post is singular; posts is plural.

Have to run. Sorry, Crystal.

[Jaecp]

Wow, I had completely forgotten about this thread. Thanks for bumping it Sarah.

And yet, nowhere was solely used anywhere in your past post and it was ONLY added in, when it became clear that you couldn't back your argument up with anything more than an assertion because as always, you twist and twist to avoid admitting you are wrong. What, do you not think I know how to go back and read your past post? Here is what you first said:

Needing more than just religious belief is the same thing as "not solely religious belief"

What I did was try to rephrase my statement so you'd better be able to understand the actual, real legalality of this kind of thing.

Yet it is ok to force people to believe gay marriage is right (even when not everybody is religious who is opposed to gay marriage. Remember, California is among the least religious states in the country and they voted to make gay marriage illegal), but let us continue:

It's a plural country. There are many groups that believe certain things people do are morally wrong that are not illegal.

Nobody is forcing you to believe gay marriage is morally correct. What is happening that the prevention of gay people from getting married is no longer stopped based upon peoples religious beliefs. That's why you see claims about other things than just "gay marriage is wrong"

Oh, and gay marriage is not illegal in Cali. The state simply isn't issueing more "marriage" licenses to gay couples. 7 million people voted against gay marriage out of a state with almost 38 million people. What happened was that a significant conservative minority got mobilized and took the rest of the state by surprise. The legal status of people already married is that they are married and people can still get married in everything but name, not to mention that courts in California have struck down Prop 8 for constitutional violations and that the proponents of the bill have lost every appeal so far. If SCOTUS declines to review, gay and lesbian marriage will recommence this year, or maybe January.

It's about what we're basing stuff on. We don't legislate religious beliefs, laws that coincide with what is prescribed against by a specific religion need a secular basis as well to not violate the first amendment.

It is amazing though how you changed up your argument, without of course, admitting you might have said too little, wasn't clear, etc, but you seem to want to always blame others for miscommunication. Nice and you wonder why I and others give you this sort of treatment. It is because you earn it with your attitude.

The "secular as well" and "not solely religious" are equivalent statements here. I'm not changing anything. It's my teacher mother and her insistences that I always know more than one way to explain something to people in case they don't get it the first time.

Sure, after you changed up your words to mean something else and never admitting you were wrong the first time. Anyway, they have as much of a right to do things as you do, rather you like it or not.

See above and you are absolutely correct.

They have the legal right to advocate for the changing of laws that is congruent with our system of effecting change.

Like it or not, that means having more than just a religious belief as a basis for law.

Nah, my problem is your tendency to never admit you are wrong and blame others for your own faults. No where can I find in your response to Sparko that you might have not been clear enough, misspoke, etc. You just instead when with your usual holy then thou attitude and wonder why you get all the disrespect you earn.

Sorry, but I was raised to be honest.

Awe, poor Jaecp, he can't respond to it without drooling on the floor over it. Again, the fact one of the most liberal states in the nation voted against homosexual marriage seems to indicate it is not just the religious that have problems with it.

You really don't know what you're talking about. Perhaps you should browse the wiki or google up some news sources before shooting off?

The funny thing I remember in my school; those that bullied the gay kids or 'possible' gay kids themselves were about as much of a Christian as you were and some of the most homophobic people I know are non-religious. It isn't just religious people that have problems with homosexuality and gay marriage, many non-religious do too, yet the media has this tendency to paint it as only being religious people that do… funny how that works, huh?

Oh my. Now I was never really a Christian? No True Scotsmen are great and all, but who are you convincing?

And "Many" now? How many? The media paints it as religious objection because from all appearances it is overwhelming a religiously based objection that a few irreligious people think gays are squicky or have some sort of randian "we lose money over it" rational for not wanting to legalize gay marriage does not change the overwhelmingly religious basis of the objection.

You are, of course, free to demonstrate that a significant amount of the objection to gay marriage is secular in origin.

Oh, and you should probably read this before arguing with people over california.

[Jedidiah]

-- and the Church is going to have to deal with that.

(snip)

And I predict that the Church will deal with this inevitability when it comes -- it's in their own best interest to do so, and not from any outside government influence.

Nathan, would you please define for me the word Church, as you see it.

[Cerebrum123]

You really don't know what you're talking about. Perhaps you should browse the wiki or google up some news sources before shooting off?

Yeah, going there will make her an expert on the subject.

[Nathan Poe]

Nathan, would you please define for me the word Church, as you see it.

As I see it is a complicated issue, but for the purpose of this discussion, I'm referring to "Church" as the collection of institutions -- The Catholic Church, the Episcopal Church, the Baptist Church, etc...

Individual members, as well as those who don't self-identify with any one particular institution, will react, obviously, individually, but I don't see their opinions making much of a difference. It's what those institutions do that matters.

And like it or not, they're going to have to deal with this -- it'll be in their own best interest to do so.

[Jedidiah]

Okay, then to some degree at least you are correct Church institutions will have to decide somehow what to do.

[Jaecp]

Yeah, going there will make her an expert on the subject.

She's currently terribly underinformed so it can't hurt.

[Nathan Poe]

Okay, then to some degree at least you are correct Church institutions will have to decide somehow what to do.

And while we may not be able to accurately predict what they will do, it's not altogether unreasonable to speculate.

For starters, as I said before, I'm taking it as a given that gay marriage is going to happen in America. I'm not placing bets as to when or exactly how it will occur, but I think it's inevitable.

I also think that any pressure for the institutions to accept this inevitability will come, not from the government, but from the churchgoers themselves. At some point, it's just going to become a dead horse not worth beating anymore.