Hey Religious guys, serious question (not a troll thread)

[dirtysix]

Well I didn't think so, I just wanted to make sure there wasn't some obscure passage I missed.

Basically we got on the topic of why I dislike Republicans, and gay marriage was brought up. I said, "Who cares what two adults do?" etc etc etc etc.

He said he was OK with gay's being given all the rights of marriage, but it being called a civil union, I told him he was just playing semantics at that point. And asked him, "How does the sex life of two adults directly intrude on your life?"

His response, "God is all knowing.....God says its wrong.....And I think God judges countries........so if we condone it, I hope I don't have to answer for it when I die."


I then left work, shaking my head in disbelief, as he smugly, gloated...............somehow thinking he was making a really good point.

It's a little more than semantics though.

We have a civil union law, that couples of any persuasion can use, that gives them the same legal rights as married couples.

Some people just don't like the idea of marriage.

[iamsam]

Z31, answer is no. Bible does say homosexuality is a sin, but it's not my sin if others practice it. I don't need to vote to allow gay marriage for example, but others can if they want, it's up to them.

[aworthybrother]

we will know the answer next year, December 21, 2012

[ck_taft325is]

This is a great point. If the answer is "no" then why are they always trying to legislate morality and get all up in your business? The emphasis on self seems to be missed in some churches.

Well, by saying that they get in others business or "your" business with their sense of morality and how it offends you, or should I say, your sense of morality as you view this as wrong is to claim that your sense of morality (not bugging the crap out of people) is better than theirs. What are your justifications for that claim? Or reasons? It's less that they (Christian's in general as that's how you're referring to them) miss the emphasis on "self" and more the "love" part.

"Teacher, what must I do to inherit the Kingdom of Heaven?"
"What does the Law say?"
"Have no other God's before the Lord and love your neighbor as yourself."
"You have responded correctly, go and do this and you shall find Favor with God"
"But teacher, who is my Neighbor?"
"Anyone in need."

See where most Christian's go wrong? This is where I'm heavily critical of not just Christian's, but people in general. Most Christian's, as right accused by Christ himself, do not have the love of God in them because they fail miserably to show that same love (which God enables you to truly give) to those He's placed in their life. You could easily state that not loving your neighbors, (those in need by Christ's own word) is a siginificant sign that they are indeed, lacking God in their lives entirely. Empty mouth pieces as it where.

/endsermon.

I would continue but it's wildly off topic to start this debate/flame fest. So, that's that.

[dirtysix]

/endsermon.

Thank god for that.

[Turf1600]

It's a little more than semantics though.

We have a civil union law, that couples of any persuasion can use, that gives them the same legal rights as married couples.

Some people just don't like the idea of marriage.

Civil unions here don't yeild citizenship.

[joshh]

The more apt response is to them pointing at gay being a sin is... "And?"

I've discussed and argued this and many other things with many religious people till I was in need of beer. It just never sinks in. Even according to the bible we are all sinners.
I used to work for a guy that's a Jehovah's Witness, now those conversations I wish I had recorded.
Because it says it they believe it.

[z31maniac]

It's a little more than semantics though.

We have a civil union law, that couples of any persuasion can use, that gives them the same legal rights as married couples.

Some people just don't like the idea of marriage.

No, it really is semantics.

Let's call them "relationships," if in society (we aren't talking about God/Religion/here as marriage is now a legal institution), the same rights are granted to homo/hetereosexual couples.............as in LITERALLY the EXACT SAME rights.

How is it NOT semantics to say that it has to be labeled one way or another? It's a way to put a derogatory connotation on a relationship. By referring to it as a "civil union" is to imply that it is somehow less worthy of recognition than a "marriage."

[Ryann]

A bit of a side note here, but something that baffles me about Christians is that they worship a guy who lived a perfect life while trying to teach them how they should live and how they should treat each other. Then they ignore his teachings and say, "We can't possibly be that decent, because we're sinners. That's okay though, because when the Jews murdered Jesus it made it so that we don't have to live the way he repeatedly told us to live, because he died for our sins."

[87e30]

Back to the original question.

I believe some interpretations lead people to believe that they are responsible for their children, and accountable for what they allow their children to do.

[Turf1600]

A bit of a side note here, but something that baffles me about Christians is that they worship a guy who lived a perfect life while trying to teach them how they should live and how they should treat each other. Then they ignore his teachings and say, "We can't possibly be that decent, because we're sinners. That's okay though, because when the Jews murdered Jesus it made it so that we don't have to live the way he repeatedly told us to live, because he died for our sins."

Additionally, we were created in his image. Note also that humans evolve. We can logically deduct that God evolves as well if the latter is true. Can perfection evolve? Sure, because it's open to interpretation. Just like the bible. The reason god evolves? Because it's a creation of man and we change how we define him constantly. We're always created in god's image because we're constantly changing the idea of god to suit or wants and needs. Someone may as well write the newest testament.

[Turf1600]

Back to the original question.

I believe some interpretations lead people to believe that they are responsible for their children, and accountable for what they allow their children to do.

As evidenced by Lot in the bible.

[z31maniac]

Additionally, we were created in his image. Note also that humans evolve. We can logically deduct that God evolves as well if the latter is true. Can perfection evolve? Sure, because it's open to interpretation. Just like the bible. The reason god evolves? Because it's a creation of man and we change how we define him constantly. We're always created in god's image because we're constantly changing the idea of god to suit or wants and needs. Someone may as well write the newest testament.

So you don't believe in God anymore than the idea that humans created an "idea of perfection" to try to attain?

[Turf1600]

So you don't believe in God anymore than the idea that humans created an "idea of perfection" to try to attain?

If you're implying that god is an idea and is therefore real I suppose you must be correct. Otherwise that's not a fair comparison.

[dirtysix]

No, it really is semantics.

Let's call them "relationships," if in society (we aren't talking about God/Religion/here as marriage is now a legal institution), the same rights are granted to homo/hetereosexual couples.............as in LITERALLY the EXACT SAME rights.

How is it NOT semantics to say that it has to be labeled one way or another? It's a way to put a derogatory connotation on a relationship. By referring to it as a "civil union" is to imply that it is somehow less worthy of recognition than a "marriage."

I know what you're saying but there are civil union/partnership, domestic partnership etc with differing laws around the world, such as the UK where it seems that civil partnerships are for gay couples only.

In NZ's case it seems it probably is semantics.