Defunct because of the immorality spawned from their beliefs in God or because people who worshipped your God slaughtered them? What's the test of time? A thousand years? Five thousand? Shall we throw out some arbitrary number so you can claim a test of time standard?
Dumbass.....the Mayans, the Sumerians, Hittites, etc, etc. were not "slaughtered" by those who worshipped "my" God. The end of their civilizations did stem from their immorality. When you have no right or wrong, you no longer have civilization. That sense of right and wrong can only come from a belief system rooted in a power above man. So face it, our entire civilization, whether you like or not, is based on GOD. So get over it. Smile, God loves you.
One more time on a philosophical level since that's probably where you're going with this dumb example. You can throw out any number of extreme examples of things where I certainly cannot definitely prove the negative however the level of faith required to believe that the Sun will rise tomorrow and the level to believe that there is an all powerful being controlling the universe are on such incredibly different planes of faith that's it's barely worth bothering with. So comparatively, my faith in the Sun coming up tomorrow is at 99.99% while I find it hard to believe anyone's faith in a God can be any more than .01%. Just like my faith in there being poke-a-dot colored hot dogs composing the rings of some planet billions of light years away is pretty low even though I can't absolutely discount the possibility. Frankly that's a really lame way to give credence to the existence of God.
Duh...If you were really reading what I had to say, all of the examples I gave were of civilizations that were not conquered by those who believe in the One True God. I know Cortez conquered the Aztecs. But was he acting as a true follower of God? I think not. He was a butcher and opportunist of the worst sort. What is your beef with your Creator and those who believe in Him? And lastly.......geez, this thread has spun way off track.
I find this quote puzzling. It seems to contradict every other post you've made in this thread. From what I've read, you're using your belief in your god to justify creating a "morality" law that will have an effect on everyone, believers and non-believers alike, in this country. I think that is where many non-Christians see it as an intrusion. From what I can tell, gays marrying has no effect on national security or our country's economic well-being. Nor will in put any of our citizens in any type of peril. The only objection I can see to it is religious. Therefore, the most sensible solution is for there to be a religious ban on it, enforced on a church-by-church basis. If a Catholic Church is against it, than neither they nor their members should perform or participate in gay weddings. If a Methodist Church has no opposition, then its members can perform or participate in gay weddings. I see no need to drag the federal government into enforcing what is, essentially, a religious opposition.
Well I'm no history major but I'm pretty sure the Mayans were at least a two or three thousand year old civilization and they were conquered by the Aztecs who were conquered by the Spanish. Native Americans are thousands of years old as well and they were conquered by us. So that's three examples of civilizations doing just fine without Christianity, without the Ten Commandments, and who believed in their own true gods. You're no different from the Mayans and Aztecs in your belief in a "One True God" IMHO. We know they were wrong and we'll know one day that you are wrong too. So please give me an explanation how these civilizations could survive for so long having believed total nonsense as the foundation of their societies? Funny huh?
My own religious beliefs admittedly play a part in this argument.....but putting those aside, I think this sets a dangerous precedent, the slippery slope model. Once we change this definition of marriage, one that has been accepted throughout history and sanctioned by government because a group wants acceptance for a lifestyle considered abberant by the mores of society for whatever reason, we are at risk of allowing other, more sinister elements to put in a legal "us too" argument to piggyback their way to government legitimization of their lifestyle. Call it civil unions, call it whatever you will. But marriage it will never be, as defined by our civilization for the past thousands of years. If there was nothing wrong with gay marriage, why was it not practiced in ancient Greece, where homosexuality was not taboo? Why.....it's simple, really. Marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN. Anything other than that is a sham and a falsehood. The fact that gays reject the idea of civil unions that hold every single protection that married couples enjoy except for the word "marriage" proves their agenda. Their agenda is to force the rest of the country to accept a lifestyle as normal which is not normal at all. And by government sanctioning this lifestyle through allowing them to marry, they are condoning and encouraging it. I'm not for a constitutional amendment because I'm a strong believer in state's rights. But I see a great deal of chaos if one state allows it and a gay couple move to a state that doesn't, sue and win the day via judicial fiat. Lastly, why is always that Christians are always "forcing" their morality on people, but yet we always have to be tolerant of those whose lifestyles run countercurrent to our own? You preach tolerance, but yet you have no tolerance for our beliefs. This is not a religious question, but a legal one.
Yeah, I mean like, come on! What are these liberal nuts thinking? Next thing you know black people will be wanting to VOTE! Can you imagine such a silly thing?
Doing fine? Cortez and Pizarro conquered vast empires with a few hundred troops apiece. An nation without right and wrong founded in belief in some kind of higher power will not stand. It doesn't have to be the Christian God, you put those words in my mouth. Apparently the Mayans had a rule of law, because without it cities and trade would cease to exist. The North American indians lived a moral lifestyle and had laws and mores attributed to some sort of deity. Of course this law derives from a higher power, because as I said earlier, left to our devices, we are nothing more than the animal kingdom doing what we want when we want. They did not know the Christian God, but God is universal and everywhere, in every bit of Creation. I am not wrong because I will go to a better place when my flame is extinguished.....But what about you, my friend? And you've never answered my question. What is your animus towards your Creator and those who believe in HIM?
Thanks for the advice bama and mark. Luckily I should have a year or so to decide what I will do. bama, I truly admire your loyalty to your friend by being her maid of hon...best man. I'm sure it was a difficult decision for you. however, I have to ask you what will you do if/when gay marriage becomes legal and she and her wife want to do it again for real? will you stand by her or your strong religious beliefs?
Of course I will stand by her and her companion, two of the best friends a person could have. She's closer to me than my sister. To my children, she and her companion both are their beloved aunts. You can't hug a belief.
I keep hearing this argument, but I don't see any rational basis for it other than sheer alarmism. I'm assuming these "sinister elements" are all the usual suspects: polygamists, pedophiles, practitioners of beastiality, etc... First, we can eliminate the non-concentual acts (since those truly are harmful to another being): so that takes care of the pedophiles and "special friends" of animals. That leaves us with the dreaded polygamists. Statistically speaking, how many marriage-minded polygamists do we think there actually are in the US? Maybe .5 percent? And so if less than 1 million or so of our nation's consenting adults decide to get married in groups of three or more, how exactly does that destroy the fabric of our society? I just don't see it. Marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN. Anything other than that is a sham and a falsehood. Clearly, this is your opinion. The problem is you seem to regard it as a solid fact. Their agenda is to force the rest of the country to accept a lifestyle as normal which is not normal at all. Again, this is your opinion that their lifestyle is not normal, but you offer it as undisputed fact. Although the numbers of gays is statistically far smaller than heterosexuals, that doesn't mean it's "not normal". Redheads, though statistically small in numbers, are still a normal part of the natural world. Lastly, why is always that Christians are always "forcing" their morality on people, but yet we always have to be tolerant of those whose lifestyles run countercurrent to our own? When Christians pass a law that says all gays (Christian or non) cannot legally marry, that has an intrusive effect in the lives of homosexuals. But if gays marry, it effectively has no intrusive effect into Christians' lives. No one is forcing you to be friends with gay couples, attend their weddings, give them gifts, etc... It has no effect on your life other than your knowledge that it exists. I think there's a pretty clearly defined difference there. You preach tolerance, but yet you have no tolerance for our beliefs. I'm not sure if this was adressed to anyone specifically or to non-Christians in general. Personally, I feel I am a tolerant person. I have no problem with people of any religious faith -- if what they practice brings them closer to peace and happiness then I'm all for it. But, I think it's damaging to everyone when one group tries to impose its specific dogma on everyone else. It breeds the very atmosphere of bickering and intolerance that we'd seek to avoid.
That is a good point and I will take that into consideration in my own situation. Thanks. Also, I'm glad that you've allowed your kids to get to know them. Just curious, have your kids asked you about homosexuality and what did you tell them?
Originally posted by bamaslammer Doing fine? Cortez and Pizarro conquered vast empires with a few hundred troops apiece. An nation without right and wrong founded in belief in some kind of higher power will not stand. It doesn't have to be the Christian God, you put those words in my mouth. Apparently the Mayans had a rule of law, because without it cities and trade would cease to exist. The North American indians lived a moral lifestyle and had laws and mores attributed to some sort of deity. Any civilization that lasts two thousand years is doing just fine. Their downfall had nothing to do with their morality or belief system. Their belief in a higher power was completely bogus. All of these people had beliefs based on false gods and yet lived just fine without the imposition of your god. Of course this law derives from a higher power, because as I said earlier, left to our devices, we are nothing more than the animal kingdom doing what we want when we want. They did not know the Christian God, but God is universal and everywhere, in every bit of Creation. I am not wrong because I will go to a better place when my flame is extinguished.....But what about you, my friend? Their laws derived from the higher power known as the sun god? We are left to our own devices, we all do what we want when we want. It's called free will. Native Americans derived their laws from the god of the wind and the spirits they saw while they were hallucinating? If I took a GI Joe doll to another world and they somehow got the idea it was god then they'd develop laws and principles around that belief and they'd be derived from the higher power known as Snake Eyes? You're not wrong because when you die you believe you'll go to a better place? I'll bet you money you don't go anywhere, how's that? And you've never answered my question. What is your animus towards your Creator and those who believe in HIM? This thread would explain that. You said people aren't tolerant of your beliefs which is crap, we're not tolerant of you forcing your beliefs on others. Do homosexuals come up to you and try to persuade you to be gay? Do they have networks dedicated to turning the public into homosexuals? Do they knock on your door every Sunday to read to you why homosexuality is a viable lifestyle? Wouldn't you find that pretty damn annoying? The whole persecution of Christians angle is pathetic. We are tolerant of your beliefs, we just get tired of you trying to inject them into everyone's lives all the time.
They have....my son is 8 and my daughter is 5. I told them that their aunts are different in that they believe that two women together can be in love just like your mother and father. I also said they feel the same way that your parents feel about each other and just because they are different, doesn't mean they are bad people nor should they be made fun of.
Timing, I'm not forcing my beliefs upon you. I just disagree with this idea of gay marriage as a legal precedent, not strictly from my religious upbringing. Just because I disagree with homosexuality as a practice on religious grounds doesn't mean I hate people who engage in that behavior. I think you have me confused with those evil bigots who carry "God Hates Fags" signs. Those people are not real Christians at all, because ours is a religion founded on love, not hate. How am I imposing my morality on people just because I don't want the legal definition of marriage expanded to include gay couples? It may not be an imposition on me personally, but I guarantee it will open a Pandora's box to change other social mores on other sexual issues. The consequences for society will be ugly. If marriage as a definition that has stood for countless centuries be changed on a caprice.....what stops people from changing other foundation principles to fit their agenda? I support civil unions and the right of states to pass those sort of unions into law. But marriage has strictly been defined for years as between man and woman. It is one of those immoveable foundations of our very civilization. Why do we need to change it now? Reserve the legal definition of marriage for hetero couples.....and allow gay couple to have civil unions (in states that allow it) that carry all of the same rights of married couples. If something ain't broke.....why fix it?
bravo man. on behalf of my peoples I want to thank you for teaching them tolerance. keep up the good parenting.
Are there any other symbolic Christian values the gays want to destroy while in full force? Or is destoying the definition of marriage enough for them? Woops, alittle saracasm directed towards the homosexual agenda-slam me for a hate crime while your at it.
you don't need us for that. you guys are doing a pretty good job of it already. see: Neil Bush, Kobe Bryant, Clara Harris, Prince Charles, Jennifer Lopez, etc., etc. Those communion wafers would taste better with some Foie Gras pate.
