Religion based intolerance...

[pajarito 0]

  Quote

Dude, how many words do you type a minute?

I don't know. Pretty fast. These things really wear me out, though.

[Nightingale 0]

Legislating from the bench?? gimme a break.

It's the JOB of judges to interpret the laws. They're just doing what they're supposed to. When laws are in conflict with the constitution, judges are supposed to strike them.

Kevin Keith explains better than I can:

"As for "running to the courts" - that's what the courts are for. The basic idea behind our limited democracy - a constitutional democracy with a bicameral house and separation of powers - is to prevent tyranny of the majority. We have democratic structures, but limits on what the democratic process can do. The reason is that if we concentrated all power in the democratic bodies or processes, there would be no limits on what could be done through the democratic process - which is a bad thing, even if you believe in democracy as a general proposition.

The underlying assumption is that there are some things that the government should not do, even if a majority of citizens or their representatives wants to do them. There are, that is, certain core freedoms that should be off-limits to the democractic process, even if democracy is your preferred method of government, or even indeed if it is the best method.

...snip...

The major anti-democratic features of our government - non-proportional representation in the Senate, representative rather than direct democracy (even more so originally than today), the checks-and-balances system, the Bill of Rights and the supermajority requirement for Constitutional amendments - are attempts to limit the power of the majority to impose its will against, or over, those central values which the government may not invade no matter how much the people want it, or how many of them want it. The courts - the most non-democratic branch of the government - enforce this central immunity; they draw the lines the majority will not draw against itself.

One may agree or disagree with particular court decisions, but the argument that courts should not "make law" because it is non-democratic [carries] no water. That's precisely the point: the court is *expected to act to prevent [democratic decision-making]* when those decisions encroach upon the central core of personal freedoms upon which no government and no majority may be allowed to trespass."

[pajarito 0]

  Quote

  Quote

The kinds of people I used to work with, for the most part, were very smart, arrogant, proud, self-reliant, humanistic
Many were either agnostic, atheist, or intentionally did not ascribe to any religion due to the personality traits mentioned.

I agree that the above traits, particularly intelligence, are correlated with low religiosity. This community probably isn't a representative sample of the general population.
There are loads of intelligent religious people, and from what I've read, I would include you in that category.
I suspect that your basic religious beliefs were formed before you were old enough to really think about them.
This is true for the vast majority of us, including myself. I was raised Catholic, and went to Catholic school.

I would have almost guessed that you had Catholic influence growing up. That is another interesting line of thought and would probably make a good thread of its own. It seems to me that there are an awful lot of people that were raised Catholic that later reject faith. Anyway, just a thought.

I was not raised in a Christian church-going home and did not form basic religious beliefs at a young age. Nothing, and I mean nothing, was forced down my throat. I didn’t become a Christian until 1997 and I’m 35 now. Looking back, even though I wouldn’t have admitted it at the time, I always had a feeling that there was a God looking out for me. My decision came about 2 years after my Grandfather died. It was traumatic to me, we were very close, and I wanted to make sure he went to a good place and was taken care of. I didn’t make my decision easily and debated openly with others as well as inside for a long time. My brother-in-law talked with me a LOT on the subject. With all of my studying and questioning, though, he stopped me one night after a run and told me, “You know in your heart of hearts already the answer to most of your questions.” He was right. That’s what I mean when I say that God has to make the first move.

  Quote

This deserves a thread of it's own. I've never heard any compelling arguments to justify the assumption that there is a God of some sort.
For the sake of argument, I have made that assumption in the past, and still found the widely held Christian beliefs to be logically inconsistent.

It would make a good thread on its own.

  Quote

Many (all?) of the authors you and I mentioned argue that the convergence/similarities between the accounts in different books of the bible is evidence for the veracity of the bible. In fact, that's what you've been arguing.

First, I don't think anyone disputes the existence of a man named Jesus. It's whether or not he was God that is disputed.
At least some of the authors set up a strawman argument by suggesting that non believers reject the very existence of Christ.
Others assume that if he existed at all, he was divine. Both are fallacious arguments.

If the similarities between different accounts of the life of Jesus are meaningful, then the following similarities between the story of Jesus, the Egyptian god Horus, and the Hindu god Krishna ought to be of great interest to you:

Thousands of years before Jesus,
Krishna was referred to as the son of god, and was part of a trinity. He was sent from heaven to earth in human form. At birth he was visited by wisemen that followed a star.

Even more intriguing are the parallels between Horus and Jesus:
Horus was born in human form during the winter solstice (late December), his virgin mother's name?
Meri.

Herut attempted to kill Horus. Herod attempted to kill Jesus.

Horus and Jesus were both baptised at 30 years of age. The baptiser in each story was later beheaded.
Thousands of years before Christ, Horus was said to have walked on water, cured the blind, healed lepers, and had 12 disciples.
To top it all off, Horus was crucified with two thieves, buried in a tomb, and resurected 3 days later.

There's actually quite a bit more, but if the above doesn't get your attention, nothing will.
Details

I would agree with you aside from the fact that there were many others who actually saw what happened and recorded what they saw. None of the other sources you mentioned have the specificities that the Bible has or can credibly make those claims of truth. As for ancient works, it is in a class of its own.

  Quote

It's logical, but with conditions and limitations.
For relatively ordinary claims such as there's a cache of weapons hidden in the mud hut on the left side of that road, or Jesus was a carpenter, it's reasonable to take the claim seriously based upon the word of several people.

However, things such as that Jesus walked on water, was resurrected, and ascended to heaven are extraordinary claims.
They also happen to be claims identical to claims made about Horus before the time of Jesus.

So you accept information confirmed by various different people until the events that they’re describing as happened exceed your level of understanding? Yes, they are extraordinary claims but they are backed up nicely. I’ve not read the stories of Horus but, whatever his claims; I’ll bet he didn’t have the credible sources or the historical evidence that the Bible has.

  Quote

It doesn't seem to work for you either. Otherwise, I'd expect a bit more of a consensus amongst Christians.

It definitely works for me. There are differences in denomination/tradition/ceremony but to all Bible teaching Christian groups (excluding groups that claim Christianity but are not like Jehovah’s Witness/Mormons, etc), there is a central theme.

• Quote

[pajarito 0]

  Quote

Such people most certainly do exist. I didn't say anything about a perfect person, someone without sin. I simply described a basically decent person that doesn't believe in God.

The question was: How could a just, all knowing, loving god punish such a person? Especially if people with decidedly poorer track records in life are rewarded simply because they believe in God?
It's absurd.

I think this needs to be quoted again for clarity:

“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith – and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God – not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.” Ephesians 2:8-10”

I agree. It is beyond my human comprehension also. But it’s true. It is only through Christ which makes any good works you do in life righteous with God. Jesus is the “only” who is sinless and, therefore, qualified to claim righteousness. If one is a true Christian and Jesus is in their hearts, they will be compelled to do good works in life. It’s not that they can do enough good works to make themselves righteous on their own merit. It just doesn’t work that way. However absurd it may seem to us.

[jakee 1,563]

  Quote

You could be the greatest humanitarian the world has ever seen building houses for poor people all over the world and feeding kids in all the orphanages. It amounts to nothing in the eyes of God unless it’s done through the Jesus who is in the heart of true Christians.

I can't even come up with a response to that. The idea that an omnisient god would see the world in such a ludicrously over simplified, and frankly incredibly egotistical way just boggles my mind even more than the idea of god full stop.

I can't come up with a reasoned argument against that right now besides screaming THATS SO F***ING UNFAIR!!!!

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[pajarito 0]

  Quote

This might be slightly off topic, but what would the theologians here think of someone who likes the whole christian salvation idea, but cannot stand church services, or church people's hypocracy? I have always found church services a use of time better spent sleeping or skydiving.

First, I’m not a Theologian. I can’t stand hypocrisy in church and don’t necessarily like all church services. I especially don’t like churches or denominations that put more emphasis on ceremonial service structure (say a particular memorized thing at a certain time in sequence with everybody else in the room or don’t eat the bread until everybody does instead of just doing it when you get it) than true biblical teaching. That sadly turns many away (some from faith altogether which is a tragedy). I think the Bible should be at the core and emphasized the most in any denomination. I think we get caught up in all the weeds of the way we should worship instead of making every effort to live and worship according to God’s will which is described in the Bible.

  Quote

I like the idea of salvation, but there are too many fire-n-brimstone types who mourn their faith, casting God as someone who insists we live a spartan existance, becuase certain acts/thoughts are arbitrarily "bad"...Not coincidentially, all these "Bad" things are also fun things...so we're supposed to live an unpleasant life of self-denial for an afterlife that may or may not be??

There are different denominations each with its way of doing things. I’d suggest finding one that fits you best as long as its Bible teaching foundation is strong.

Also, you’re right and there is a lot of self-denial in the Christian life. It makes it a hard life to live (attempt to be more like Jesus). I don’t even come close. There is self-denial because you’re supposed to try and always think of others first. However, a lot of self-fulfillment also comes with that sacrifice.

[pajarito 0]

That's cool. That's the way our system is set up. It just needs to be declared unconstitutional by the court before mayors break the law and defy the will of the people by issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples. It is my hope (but I personally doubt it will ever happen) that a constitutional amendment gets made declaring that a marriage is defined as only between one man and one woman.

[pajarito 0]

  Quote

You could be the greatest humanitarian the world has ever seen building houses for poor people all over the world and feeding kids in all the orphanages. It amounts to nothing in the eyes of God unless it’s done through the Jesus who is in the heart of true Christians.

I can't even come up with a response to that. The idea that an omniscient god would see the world in such a ludicrously over simplified, and frankly incredibly egotistical way just boggles my mind even more than the idea of god full stop.

I can't come up with a reasoned argument against that right now besides screaming THATS SO F***ING UNFAIR!!!!

[billvon 3,073]

>It just needs to be declared unconstitutional by the court before
> mayors break the law and defy the will of the people by issuing
> marriage licenses to same sex couples.

It is my hope that the constitution does not become a document that removes, rather than guarantees, rights of all citizens. We made such a mistake before (prohibition) but repealed it. I hope we don't have to go through that exercise again.

[pajarito 0]

  Quote

It is my hope that the constitution does not become a document that removes, rather than guarantees, rights of all citizens. We made such a mistake before (prohibition) but repealed it. I hope we don't have to go through that exercise again.

I'm sure that the issue concerning the institution of marriage is vastly more important to the foundations of our society and culture than prohibition was and, therefore, would be rightly considered for an amendment to the Constitution.

[sdgregory 0]

  Quote

I think that the reason you "don't know the whole answer to that" is that there is no adequate response to that citation of flaw in the Christian mythos.

How about since God is God he owes no explanation for what you do not understand?

How about if you choose to disbelieve then no possible explanation will satisfy you?

You have made up your mind and every possible or conceivable piece of evidence will be lost on you.

I do not claim to understand all of God's ways. I am not arrogant enough to require He clear anything or explain anything to me until I am satisfied.

He is who He is. In fact when Moses asked who He was, God said two words. "I Am." So even one of God's chosen got very few answers to his questions. Moses was however wise enough to understand that God was God. He was wise enough to understand that Whoever created the universe had every right to run it His way.

Christians do not have all the answers, we just have the only one that matters.

This is it:

God loves us and died for us to reconcile us to Him.

That is all I need to know. That is all I care about. All other questions are for God to reveal IF and WHEN He decides I should know them.

So what you see as a flaw, we see as God's divine right. You are arrogant enough to think God owes you. (If you believe He exists at all.) Good luck with that.

As far as I am concerned:

He owes me nothing. I will serve Him because I owe Him.

[sdgregory 0]

  Quote

I can't come up with a reasoned argument against that right now besides screaming THATS SO F***ING UNFAIR!!!!

Except that all you have to do is believe Christ. That's it. The whole thing. Just believe that Christ died for your sins and believe God will honor His word that for believing you get heaven. What could be simpler.


The truth gets so clouded. We wrap ourselves in all these things we see as unfair and forget the plain simple truth. We look for answers to every little detail and think we are somehow entitled to them.

The simple no nonsense truth is we cannot be perfect. God can. So He died for us and said accept that. Just accept it and we will be seen as perfect. Simple.

Unfair is God making us, loving us, and us giving Him the collective finger and then telling Him that He needs to cow down to our demands. THAT is unfair.

Unfair is God saying there is punishment for disobedience, suffering that punishment Himself, and us saying, well that's great but you owe us more. We want to see real proof of your love. In fact we want You to PROVE you exist the way we want. God says all nature testifies to His existence, but that is not enough.

"Greater love has no man than this; that He lay down His life for His friends." Christ did this.

Then His friends say sorry, not interested because that is not enough? That's unfair.

I bet God could write a list of things that He sees as us being unfair.

I'm just glad that instead He spread His arms to show how much He loves me.

[billvon 3,073]

>I'm sure that the issue concerning the institution of marriage is
> vastly more important to the foundations of our society and culture
> than prohibition was . . .

Not to judge by people's reaction to prohibition.

Also, keep in mind that marriage is almost unrecognizable nowadays, when you compare it to marriages of years ago. Women were essentially owned; you could beat your wife as long as you didn't hurt her really badly. After all, Eve was created as a helpmate for Adam. That changed pretty drastically. The institution of marriage is nowhere near as stable as you make it out to be. It changes with the times, and still the foundations of our society do not crumble.

[jakee 1,563]

  Quote

Except that all you have to do is believe Christ. That's it. The whole thing. Just believe that Christ died for your sins and believe God will honor His word that for believing you get heaven. What could be simpler.

Why yes, that is simple, how silly of me to have overlooked it.
But wait!
What if I grew up in India? China? The middle East? Japan? How would I know what to believe? All those differently dressed people offering me salvation would surely muddle my brain!

Its also quite amusing that the birthplace of christianity completely fails to be surrounded by christian states.

Edit: Think I got a bit sidetracked there

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[tkhayes 348]

"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters, nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NIV)

Geez.... is this truE? - those terms describe just about every person I have ever met in my life!

guess none of us are going to inherit - oh well, back to my swindling......
TK

[tkhayes 348]

"I'm sure that the issue concerning the institution of marriage is vastly more important to the foundations of our society and culture than prohibition was and, therefore, would be rightly considered for an amendment to the Constitution."

to you perhaps, as a Christian and from a Christian standpoint.

But many of us do not share that viewpoint and many of us do not believe in a god, in a religion, or in an afterlife. Many more people around the world believe in OTHER religions than yours.

"One way only' attitudes in the world have caused more wars, the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, and witch-buring, just to mention a few.

So I would much prefer it if you kept YOUR religion to YOURSELF and practiced it (by all means) quietly and privately. And keep it out of the laws of this country, which I have the right to live by as well and not have that crap shoved down my throat.

If there was no religion, there would be no evil.

TK

[Nightingale 0]

  Quote

That's cool. That's the way our system is set up. It just needs to be declared unconstitutional by the court before mayors break the law and defy the will of the people by issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples.

Actually, Mayor Newsom (sp?) is standing on somewhat firm legal ground. He's stuck between two laws (the Civil Rights initiative, and prop 22) that directly contradict each other. If he followed one law, he was breaking the other. He simply chose the law he was going to follow, and left it to the courts to sort things out, which, is, after all, their job.

[falxori 0]

  Quote

God is God he owes no explanation for what you do not understand

God is the explanation created by humans' need to explain what they don't understand.

10,000 years ago it was fire, later it was thunder storms, now it can be personal tragedy or anything else you can't explain in any other way.

does God exist? sure, if you need it, it will exist for you.
i don't have a problem with god as a concept, if people need it, why not.
but i do have a problem with doing things in the name of god, saying you know what god wants.
and it exists in all religions, simply becuase it gives control over people...

O

"Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

[pajarito 0]

  Quote

Not to judge by people's reaction to prohibition.

Also, keep in mind that marriage is almost unrecognizable nowadays, when you compare it to marriages of years ago. Women were essentially owned; you could beat your wife as long as you didn't hurt her really badly. After all, Eve was created as a helpmate for Adam. That changed pretty drastically. The institution of marriage is nowhere near as stable as you make it out to be. It changes with the times, and still the foundations of our society do not crumble.

“Almost unrecognizable” is a stretch. Yes, times have changed. However, the basis, foundation, or principle concerning marriage has remained constant. An institution as important as this one should be defined specifically. Marriage = 1 man + 1 woman.

[pajarito 0]

  Quote

"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters, nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NIV)

Geez.... is this truE? - those terms describe just about every person I have ever met in my life!

guess none of us are going to inherit - oh well, back to my swindling......
TK

Yes, this is true. You are correct in that it describes just about everybody I know as well. You are incorrect by saying that “none of us are going to inherit.” Let’s review:

Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.” John 14:6-7

[pajarito 0]

  Quote

"I'm sure that the issue concerning the institution of marriage is vastly more important to the foundations of our society and culture than prohibition was and, therefore, would be rightly considered for an amendment to the Constitution."

  Quote

to you perhaps, as a Christian and from a Christian standpoint.

But many of us do not share that viewpoint and many of us do not believe in a god, in a religion, or in an afterlife. Many more people around the world believe in OTHER religions than yours.

"One way only' attitudes in the world have caused more wars, the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, and witch-buring, just to mention a few.

So I would much prefer it if you kept YOUR religion to YOURSELF and practiced it (by all means) quietly and privately. And keep it out of the laws of this country, which I have the right to live by as well and not have that crap shoved down my throat.

If there was no religion, there would be no evil.

My statement above was in the context of homosexuality, same-sex marriage, and their political agenda. I’m also against it for reasons not relating to religion at all. You’re just using my statement as a springboard to launch your anti-Christian venom.

[Erroll 80]

  Quote

And keep it out of the laws of this country, which I have the right to live by as well and not have that crap shoved down my throat.

One thing you can not accuse Pajarito of is shoving anything down anyone's throat! He has been nothing but patient and civil, as well as eloquent, without the need to resort to crude language.

[pajarito 0]

  Quote

  Quote

That's cool. That's the way our system is set up. It just needs to be declared unconstitutional by the court before mayors break the law and defy the will of the people by issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples.

Actually, Mayor Newsom (sp?) is standing on somewhat firm legal ground. He's stuck between two laws (the Civil Rights initiative, and prop 22) that directly contradict each other. If he followed one law, he was breaking the other. He simply chose the law he was going to follow, and left it to the courts to sort things out, which, is, after all, their job.

I haven’t followed that case very well. I’ve just seen a few highlights on the news. I can’t argue the specifics like you probably can without having read both documents you mentioned. I know you’re ramping up for law school and are probably all over it. However, speaking from a layman’s point of view, I’d say that until a law on the books is officially declared unconstitutional, the laws on the books must be followed.
Here’s a summary that I found concerning Prop 22. Do you have a reference to the Civil Rights Initiative? I’d like to read it.
Proposition 22
On March 7, 2000, the people of California voted on Proposition 22, a proposal to enact a state "Defense of Marriage Act" as an initiative statute. The text of Prop 22 reads:
“Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
Proposition 22 was ratified by an overwhelming majority of California voters, prevailing by a 23-point margin. Statewide, 4,618,673 votes were cast in favor of the proposition, comprising 61.4% of the total vote. Opponents garnered 2,909,370 votes, for 38.6% of the vote.
Final vote counts revealed that Proposition 22 won in 52 of California's 58 counties, including all of the major metropolitan areas except for San Francisco. The six counties which did not approve Prop. 22 were all in the immediate San Francisco Bay area, including: Alameda county, Marin county, San Francisco county, Santa Cruz county, Sonoma county, and Yolo county.

[PhillyKev 0]

  Quote

I'm sure that the issue concerning the institution of marriage is vastly more important to the foundations of our society and culture

Yes, the sacred institutioni of marriage. With half of them ending in divorce and lots of people not getting married in the first place. Marriage has NO effect on society. People pair up based on human nature, and they split up based on human nature. Marriage is a crock, it's original purpose was to allow for ownership rights over women. It's only purpose now is for the legal sharing of assets and decision making privelages regarding each others health, etc. if incapacitated.

Who wants to marry a millionaire.
The bachelor.

Proof of the all important foundational role that marriage plays. in our society and culture.

If there's a constitutional amendment regarding marriage the only thing it should do is ban it from giving a married couple any advantages over any couple that isn't married. Every single law regarding marriage violates the constitution because it is a law that establishes an advantage of one religion over another.

[Nightingale 0]

I haven’t followed that case very well. I’ve just seen a few highlights on the news. I can’t argue the specifics like you probably can without having read both documents you mentioned.

then perhaps you shouldn't use it as part of your argument, if you are unfamiliar with the case?

I know you’re ramping up for law school and are probably all over it.

I'm all over it because of the subject matter, not because of law school. Civil rights have always been of interest to me.

However, speaking from a layman’s point of view, I’d say that until a law on the books is officially declared unconstitutional, the laws on the books must be followed.

the problem is, the laws contradict each other. to follow one, you must break the other. If the mayor had followed prop 22, he would be breaking the civil rights law. if he follows the civil rights law, he breaks prop 22. its a no-win situation.

Here’s a summary that I found concerning Prop 22. Do you have a reference to the Civil Rights Initiative? I’d like to read it.



here's some research:

California state constitution, article 1, section 7B:

(b) A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens.

SEC. 31. (a) The State shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.

one could argue that marriage is a contract. The california civil rights act is worded the same: "The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting" you can read the full text here: http://www.acri.org/209/209text.html


the City contends that three sections of the California Family Code prohibiting marriage between eligible same-sex couples are void and unenforceable under article I, section 7 of the California Constitution in that they discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation and gender in violation of the State Equal Protection Clause, and violate liberty and privacy interests protected by the State Due Process Clause.


San Francisco is using California Code of Civil Procedure section 1060 to request that the court explicitly declare Family Code sections 300, 301 and 308.5 violate the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the California State Constitution, and are thereby void and unenforceable.



you can even go all the way back to the Civil Rights Act of 1866:

The Civil Rights Act of 1866

Act of April 9, 1866

An Act to protect all Persons in the United States in their Civil Rights, and furnish the Means of their Vindication.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.