Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My intent was to find out if those opposed to homosexuality had any other reason for holding that position other than the fact that their religion opposes it. I think we can see that they cant, and that some even get offended that they are asked to try.
But again....you came to a religion board to do so. It stands to reason that you'd find religious people here. And religious people are influenced by........(wait for it!)...........
But again....you came to a religion board to do so. It stands to reason that you'd find religious people here. And religious people are influenced by........(wait for it!)...........
Religion.
True. If you dont want to participate, by all means dont be bothered . Again, my point was to see if there were any logical basis for the objection other than solely " my God says its wrong". Most other moral injunctions have a logical basis even if described religiously. Dont kill, dont steal, dont rape , all are evident even without religion even if part of some religious command. Dont eat beef or pork, dont buy alcohol on Sunday, dont work on Sunday , dont cut your beard, dont accept homosexuality, etc, are just religious mandates that the adherents cannot explain their objection to in any other way other than " well , my religion teaches me its wrong so I must accept that".
I just thought it would be nice to point out that despite the publicity this subject gets, there is no more of a sensible basis for opposing it than there is for opposing the consumption of beef or a woman getting a hairdo and wearing makeup and jewelry ( both spoken against in the same Bible that believers get their ideas on homosexuality from).
Last edited by wallflash; 10-03-2015 at 12:36 PM..
"Man" and "Men" is a general term in context...and refers to both genders. I'm sure you knew that. But please keep with the dumbstuff...I love it.
Quote:
Kim Davis is free not to follow the law, or follow the law. She is free to choose her path. She was corrected by the Court. Marriage licenses are being issues to couples in her county. She appears to be getting her information from men about her faith. She is free to choose direction from men, or not.
People can talk as "renegade" as they want...but most don't have the guts to hold their position when given "instructions from men" that goes against their faith, if going against their faith would require suffering a penalty such as being jailed. Kim Davis has proved she's got the guts. She endured being jailed for her faith. Most would crumble when faced with that...she didn't. I think her concepts are wrong, in my opinion...but I give her props for standing her ground even if it meant suffering incarceration.
If ones "choice" involves suffering for one choice, but not another...then that is not "free to choose".
Quote:
You see a clear correlation? Of course you do. I have no opinion about your correlations, or imaginings of my faith. Even though you seem to be somewhat intrigued.
You wish to instruct me about history as you see it. I must do this, and I must do that. As I have told you. I do not take instructions from men. You should be hip to it already.
I'm hip to you falsely claiming you don't do, what I know you DO do. You can "tell me" whatever you want...I will then assess if I determine it to be truth or not. So far...it's mostly not.
If you live in a place where there are laws by men...and ever conform your behavior to those laws...you "take instructions from men". Speed limits, license and/or permit requirements, paying any taxes, etc, etc, etc. Obey or follow a sign...you "take instructions from men". Your claim is bogus on its face.
I find one of the best, most easily led foils...providing me with some of the best stuff I've harvested on this board in years...and you think it's lame!!?
If you mess this up for me I'll be very disappointed in you Trout.
I was worried for a second. But now I'm not.
As you can see...it's still all good!
"Man" and "Men" is a general term in context...and refers to both genders. I'm sure you knew that. But please keep with the dumbstuff...I love it.
People can talk as "renegade" as they want...but most don't have the guts to hold their position when given "instructions from men" that goes against their faith, if going against their faith would require suffering a penalty such as being jailed. Kim Davis has proved she's got the guts. She endured being jailed for her faith. Most would crumble when faced with that...she didn't. I think her concepts are wrong, in my opinion...but I give her props for standing her ground even if it meant suffering incarceration.
If ones "choice" involves suffering for one choice, but not another...then that is not "free to choose".
I'm hip to you falsely claiming you don't do, what I know you DO do. You can "tell me" whatever you want...I will then assess if I determine it to be truth or not. So far...it's mostly not.
If you live in a place where there are laws by men...and ever conform your behavior to those laws...you "take instructions from men". Speed limits, license and/or permit requirements, paying any taxes, etc, etc, etc. Obey or follow a sign...you "take instructions from men". Your claim is bogus on its face.
I use your word. You now correct yourself, blaming me for your error. ahhahahahaah
You are a Kim Davis fanboy. Mazel. She stands on a pedestal of jello, and needs all the props she can get.
I have no opinion of your truth meter assessment. It is unimportant. Amusing, but unimportant.
Okay... make that very amusing.
I comprehend just fine.
Try this again: I do not agree that it is valid to ever use "faith" as a basis to "correct" anyone about anything. Otherwise...however one interprets their "faith" is the basis they will use to feel they should never "fail to correct" what they determine through that interpretation of their "faith" as a "really harmful attitude".
The problem is...FIRST, you have to determine what constitutes a "real harmful attitude".
You get into deep problems when people start claiming that under no circumstances will they "take instruction from men", but based upon "their faith" they "will not fail to correct" what they believe is a "really harmful attitude".
Kim Davis was using her "faith" to "not allow her to fail to correct" the people that had what she determined through that "faith" to be the "really harmful attitude" that it is acceptable for same-gender couples to get married.
And THAT is what you get when you have people using their "faith" as a basis to determine what is "a really harmful attitude" that they should not "fail to correct".
I don't have any trouble determining what is a really harmful attitude when the direct result is a case like Matthew Sheppards, but you do? Yes, you really DO have a problem comprehending, because it is not the faith that is the "base for correcting" anyone, it is the demonstrably harmful attitude and the faith will only not allow one to keep silent the way so many who recognize the problem but don't confront it do.
And the 'really harmful attitude" both she and I hold is precisely the opposite of what you stated, so either it is reading comprehension or expression going wrong here.
"Men" in the context in which it was used would be individual private men, not a body of elected officials or their designated representatives. I think the reading comprehension thing is at times deliberate with you.
Truth be told I believe that God does not look any different on homosexuality than fornication, adultery, and divorce and remarriage , These are not God's design but and abuse to one another.
Do you know what abuse is ?
Using something or some one for which it is not designed.
Like using your cell phone as a door stop or a hammer.
Some abuses lead to further abuses and more deviant abuses ,to achieve that thrill of defiance to social norms or parental authority, or the law.
Drug use ,in the event of a serious injury relieving severe pain is one thing,,, but using drugs to entertain ones self does damage to ones body and even their DNA, which does have an effect on one's offspring, a crime against the innocent.
The incidents of deformed children are on the rise ,I wonder why ?
The bible warns against many things that are a detriment to society and distance one further from God.
A man that loves God is not looking for excuses to walk the fence looking on the out side.
A man that loves God is under foot as it were with Jesus in the pasture of obedience and wanting His perfect will.
In contrast ,I agree , making rules for the unregenerate to behave is a mistake in some ways, because the tendency to believe they are godly by walking them with out a relationship, means something, and it does not.
However in the event one does come to the saving knowledge and relationship with Jesus Christ , having a life with a lot less rebellion in it ,is a lot easier to deal with,, than a man so deeply ingrained in sin his past is forever beating him up.
The world would be far more barbaric had Christianity not taken the steps it did to influence the way it did , but many of you won't appreciate that .
Things like discipline are not something the world likes to hear. never the less, you would not have what you have now except for discipline, a great many of them.
We use several sad irons for doorstops, milk crates for plant stands and an old bicycle for a planter. According to your definition we are abusing them.
True. If you dont want to participate, by all means dont be bothered . Again, my point was to see if there were any logical basis for the objection other than solely " my God says its wrong".
Your error is in calling non belief a faith. It is not. It is simply a lack of faith, unbelief until evidence to the contrary is presented.
Considering non belief a form of faith is a ridiculous as considering a disbelief in Santa Claus a form of faith in mythic beings.
WOOO-HOO...one of my favorites! A Santa reference! Things are looking up around here.
I had been taking breaks from this board...cuz my harvests had gotten kinda sparse...but this trip here has been GREAT.
Of course nonbelief is faith based.
You have faith in your assumption that the indirect and circumstantial evidence that the vast majority of people that have ever lived found sufficient to support belief...really is lacking in merit as you suppose it does. You could be wrong...since you can't prove a negative. You just have FAITH that your assumptions have led you to the correct conclusion. They might not have.
You can't be sure. Matter of fact, you can't be sure about ANYTHING. Not even that you actually exist.
So, it ALL comes down to FAITH...everything does.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have no opinion about your correlations, or imaginings of my faith. Even though you seem to be somewhat intrigued. 
