RexMilotic

Using Adam and Eve as an example to prove a point is fine, but whenever I use Adam and Eve to also prove a point, you just said it's a metaphor and doesn't really count. I see problems with that. You don't get what omniscience and predestination is do you? If you have an all knowing God, then that God knows if you're going to Heaven or Hell before you existed. It's just that simple, and trying to say otherwise would mean that God is not omniscient, which causes error in the Bible, which is part of God. Next, having God intervene into human affairs causes us to change things that we shouldn't, which is interfering with our free will. Again, you don't understand what you're talking about. A century ago it was immoral to have a black person and white person be married, but now that's accepted. That's just one example of how morals have changed. Morality is subjective, it is not a universal constant.

We don't have free will. The idea we have free will and that we have an omniscient God is ridiculous. Since the idea with Christianity is that God has existed forever, that means that you were destined to either go to Hell or Heaven forever ago. Every choice you were going to make, and every consequence is already planned out, and has been forever ago. That right there is an error. Also, good and evil do not exist other than by personal judgment. Hitler could have believed what he was doing is right, while you believe otherwise. By his system he was right, by our system he was wrong. Also, evil must have existed before the tree, otherwise Adam and Eve can not be blamed for their actions. It would be Gods fault for not instilling them with knowledge of good and evil, because without that, they had no idea what they were doing. Everything in Adam and Eve is metaphoric, its not as though there's an actual tree which fruit gives the ability to judge what is right and what is wrong. And Hitler thought he was doing right, he didn't judge it was right in the sense that he rewrote it in the ethics of the conscience. God also does not create what you do. He is omniscient but not controlling. He knows what you will do because His view of time is isolated from ours; we see it in a line, He sees it as a blob all at the same time. He is seeing it, saw it and still to see it. Therefore, free choice is still possible. Also your reaction to your own sin also determines your fate, i.e. if you're sorry you are purified, if you are prideful you go to hell. You are thinking of predestinationalism. And right and wrong transcends above personal decision. Regardless of there being a god, gods or not, we are born with a concept of basic evils and basic goods. It's in our human nature to sympathize with someone when they cry, and it's in our nature to know its wrong to beat someone. Oh fun, using examples from the Bible and then casting away those examples as metaphors whenever someone has a point against you. If you're going to say it's a metaphor and disregard it, don't use it at all, because it only hurts you by bringing down your own argument. God knows exactly what you're going to do, those consequences, and where you're going to be when you die. That is what omniscience is: knowing everything. You were going to Hell/Heaven the day God existed, because he knows everything that will happen. There are also multiple accounts in the Bible where God will interfere with the fates of humans, which messes with the idea of free will. By having God interfere with people, he is directly or indirectly affecting the decisions of other people, which interferes with our free will. Right and wrong do not exist. The idea that there are set morals is just insane, because in order to survive there are times when we are better off without them. Morality is something created by humans based on the person, the time period, and the situation. That is why we don't have the same set of beliefs as people 100 years ago.

We don't have free will. The idea we have free will and that we have an omniscient God is ridiculous. Since the idea with Christianity is that God has existed forever, that means that you were destined to either go to Hell or Heaven forever ago. Every choice you were going to make, and every consequence is already planned out, and has been forever ago. That right there is an error. Also, good and evil do not exist other than by personal judgement. Hitler could have believed what he was doing is right, while you believe otherwise. By his system he was right, by our system he was wrong. Also, evil must have existed before the tree, otherwise Adam and Eve can not be blamed for their actions. It would be Gods fault for not instilling them with knowledge of good and evil, because without that, they had no idea what they were doing.

There are different types of Gods though, some of which can be disproved based upon how they're set up. I agree that some religions can't be disproved, however, a majority of the world believes in one (I say this because 3/5 of the major religions are all based from the same God) that can be. Most people either choose to ignore though.

The thing is, once a God enters the picture, as in a deity who's absolutly perfect in it's essence, and that can decide what's good and what isn't, the ideology that's stretchable becomes a very fanatic, none-stretchable religion. Your definitions and labels may be nice, but it's the final outcome I'm discussing. Sure you could call Philosophy a religion. And? What of it? Bottom line is that Philosophy has no greater entity, and the different philosofical statements can be proven, unproven, and proven again. Religion cannot be proven, and neither unproven, which is where fanatics come from. As for your comment about the followers of religion who make it's cons- A. That's not entirely true (Slavery, Anti-Gayness, etc). B. If you call what's in A a followers' fault, then the pros of religion should be considered the followers' result aswell. C. It matters not where the cons come from, only that they exist and that they wouldn't have existed if it wasn't for religion. The idea that God can't be disproved is insane. Now, if you were to say a deist god can't be disproved, I would agree. However, the Christian God is something that exists within a certain boundary, which is that created by the Bible. The errors in the Bible are also errors in God, because from what the Bible says, they're part of the same thing. God is a perfect being though, but from what the Bible says he often fails to meet his own standards, or back track on his words. The perfect being would do no such thing, leading to areas to disprove him. This isn't even using science to disprove him, just knowing that humans made up errors whenever they came up with this God. That's not disproving his existance, that's finding errors. I also never referred to any specific God. Lastly, I don't believe in any God, and as such I see discussing with an atheist whether or not God exists as pointless. A perfect God with errors is imperfect. It disproves his existence because such things can't exist. I'm referring to any God with a holy text.

The thing is, once a God enters the picture, as in a deity who's absolutly perfect in it's essence, and that can decide what's good and what isn't, the ideology that's stretchable becomes a very fanatic, none-stretchable religion. Your definitions and labels may be nice, but it's the final outcome I'm discussing. Sure you could call Philosophy a religion. And? What of it? Bottom line is that Philosophy has no greater entity, and the different philosofical statements can be proven, unproven, and proven again. Religion cannot be proven, and neither unproven, which is where fanatics come from. As for your comment about the followers of religion who make it's cons- A. That's not entirely true (Slavery, Anti-Gayness, etc). B. If you call what's in A a followers' fault, then the pros of religion should be considered the followers' result aswell. C. It matters not where the cons come from, only that they exist and that they wouldn't have existed if it wasn't for religion. The idea that God can't be disproved is insane. Now, if you were to say a deist god can't be disproved, I would agree. However, the Christian God is something that exists within a certain boundary, which is that created by the Bible. The errors in the Bible are also errors in God, because from what the Bible says, they're part of the same thing. God is a perfect being though, but from what the Bible says he often fails to meet his own standards, or back track on his words. The perfect being would do no such thing, leading to areas to disprove him. This isn't even using science to disprove him, just knowing that humans made up errors whenever they came up with this God.

The problem is that guns don't have written on them "Kill everyone who doesn't believe I exist". The religion is the corrupt part, and the followers are simply corrupted by it.

But the same can be said for the pros. Or is it just human nature? Similar things can be said for any cause; look at animal rights for example. You have supporters, you have more zealous supporters, and you have the supporters who will literally stop at nothing to see the cause through. Does the problem exist in the cause? No, it exists in the people in it. Do the few that take it too far reflect on the entire cause? No, but people are going to say that anyway, as the Muhammad cartoon (thread, article, etc.) shows. But then, I'm a strong believer in the idea that if religion (or race, or class, hell, any difference) never existed we'd all be equally divided over something else. This would have fit much better in the religious extremism thread, I think... What pros are you looking at? TO use Christianity for an example: If you followw the teachings: Pros: -Philanthropy\Altruism -Charity -Humility -Support for the current Government -Promotion of honesty, and good morals* Theres probably a lot more but I'm exhausted so cbf. *Now please, before anyone says "my morals might not be the same as yours, I like killing babies, cussing and lying" (obviously an exaggeration) I mean good morals include: following the law, being honest, being a good person in general. In other words, it's pros are something that are encouraged by nearly everything else. Then those pros tend to be negated by the other laws in the Bible.

Termites are actually doing an extremely good job at it.

But the same can be said for the pros. Or is it just human nature? Similar things can be said for any cause; look at animal rights for example. You have supporters, you have more zealous supporters, and you have the supporters who will literally stop at nothing to see the cause through. Does the problem exist in the cause? No, it exists in the people in it. Do the few that take it too far reflect on the entire cause? No, but people are going to say that anyway, as the Muhammad cartoon (thread, article, etc.) shows. But then, I'm a strong believer in the idea that if religion (or race, or class, hell, any difference) never existed we'd all be equally divided over something else. This would have fit much better in the religious extremism thread, I think... What pros are you looking at?

Coming from a gay person, I have to disagree, and somewhat agree. I do care for gay marriage, but only because of the fact that is part of equal rights right now.

Really? So a fish couldn't eat another fish because they're both fish? A man couldn't hurt another man because they're both men? Nature couldn't hurt nature (I could debate whether or not humans are a part of nature, but lets say we are) because it's also (a part of) nature? That point is just wrong- You can't say someone couldn't hurt another because they're of the same kind. I want to smack your for posting that. You could not debate a topic like that, because humans are nature, and you're an idiot if you think otherwise. Nature can hurt nature, but most of the time it makes up for itself. That's not saying that everything is natural though.

Ummmm? First off, are you talking about my idea? Well you're wrong, broseph. No offence. And who says how much children being born is too much? For all the families with 10+ kids, there are tons of families consisting of one kid, or married couples with no kids. That's cool, but I wasn't talking to you. Second of all, your posts are a disorganized mess that don't seem to have a point, be it for or against the topic. Instead you're discussing how people are ignorant, even though you're the one who seems to be ignorant of what overpopulation means. Overpopulation is a problem, and it doesn't just deal with where people live. It deals with food, water, clothing, wealth, energy, and medicine (probably more). Oh thanks, well first off lets discuss this: Why does the way my posts are organized affect the ideas in them? Who says I don't know what over population is? I'm pretty sure I know more about it then you do, but I may be wrong. And yea, it is ignorant to think that the world is over populated. Disorganized posts are extremely hard to find the meaning of. Trying arguing with someone who posts in such a mess that you don't understand what exactly they're going for in their post. I say you don't because you seem to be arguing that overpopulation just means the land that people live. Overpopulation deals with more than just land, instead it deals with the conditions that people cause in order to support such a huge group of people. Land, wealth, energy, food, water, medicine, clothing, and possibly more things are conditions that deal with overpopulation.

Ummmm? First off, are you talking about my idea? Well you're wrong, broseph. No offence. And who says how much children being born is too much? For all the families with 10+ kids, there are tons of families consisting of one kid, or married couples with no kids. That's cool, but I wasn't talking to you. Second of all, your posts are a disorganized mess that don't seem to have a point, be it for or against the topic. Instead you're discussing how people are ignorant, even though you're the one who seems to be ignorant of what overpopulation means. Overpopulation is a problem, and it doesn't just deal with where people live. It deals with food, water, clothing, wealth, energy, and medicine (probably more).

I don't believe it's selfish to not have kids. I don't want kids at all, and there's nothing inside of me telling me I need to do it. Your idea is that nature works in a way similar to a line, when it really branches out. Right now we have too many children being born, and it's only going to increase at this rate. If anything, I wouldn't be surprised if nature worked in a way to prevent as many children being born.

Hell no, you a virgin? Nope. Please, try to tell me reproduction isn't the natural purpose of sex. So you got a kid then, right? Better question: If sex is for reproduction, and gay couples are unable to reproduce, what are the gay couples doing? Better question: Why does it matter? Birth control, pulling out, and condoms are just three simple things used by straight couples to prevent children. You think that hasn't stripped away its natural purpose? That and masturbation, which isn't natural by your standards. Having sex without the goal of having children each time (meaning there's no reason for you to have sex unless it's time for children) is also not natural. I don't see you trying to prevent straight couples from getting married if their partners use any of those methods. Also, marriage =/= children. Marriage is something between those two people about things they own and other legal rights, a child is another matter.

Yet, there have already been studies on children growing up with same-sex parents, and they can be better off. You're only trying to place the blame of having one parent on one thing, while there are many other more likely problems. Such as having one parent who can't support the family, an abusive parent, or simply that parent being a bad one. Now, you're attempting to compare prohibition to something that's natural. You can't produce more gay people because you want to, and people don't turn magically gay just because you're allowed to have same-sex marriage. You're ideas on how this would work out are making this seem bad because you don't get how it works. Please, go through history and look at those times, and human nature. You're ideology of the perfect world is useless, because it has never existed and will never exist. Humans are not evil because that's how they think, because that's the way they should think in a world we have no control over.

Uh, why? This is magekillr we're talking about, pretty sure he wants to legalize everything. ;) I have a few issues with homosexual marriage. Kids - are the most basic, most natural reason for sex. Since gays can't produce kids through sex, then they've made the act illegitimate. They've stripped it of its natural purpose and are using it only for pleasure (something which unfortunately many others do as well). Some may say: "Some couples may chose not to have kids". I think that's selfish - the world needs children to survive. People forget that they too were kids once, and if they never have any..well lets just say this is far more of a threat to our future as a race than aids or "global warming". Seriously, incestuous marriage has no problems if it's two consensual adults. Kids - We already have too many, and you're worried that gay marriage is going to erase them? It's not, because there's no difference with it now nor after same-sex marriage is allowed. Besides, same-sex couples can still use other methods for children. I think your idea of threats is a bit off, because I highly doubt gay marriage is going to turn the whole world gay.

Actually, what he was arguing and I'm arguing are two different things. He is arguing about using polygamy for more than two consensual adults, while I'm arguing for two. Arguing for more than two is taking things too far off topic to be used as a defense, and your argument is an adult and a consensual object. You can't technically marry your keyboard, because it simply can't even sign the marriage license. I'm suggesting limits also, but those limits should be between two consensual adults, whether they be gay/lesbian/straight or any other. The reason I say this is because in polygamy, divorce and other legal benefits would be an issue that would be too confusing for things to work, while two consensual adults allow for both easy marriage, divorce and legal benefits to work out. Okay, so you got limits. That's good. As for homosexual marriage, I am heavily in favour for them to have legal rights the same as hetrosexual couples. But crying because some private institution (unless they get tax reductions, then [bleep] them) won't let them marry isn't what I want. Truthfully, now that I think about it, what the [bleep] is a marriage? Other than legalized benefits for taxes and such, couldn't a homosexual couple make a "mock" Christian wedding without actually "doing it in the name of God"? It's for looks rather than actual benefits. Then what are we arguing here? The right to conduct marriage ceremonies or the right for same legal rights as hetrosexuals? (this goes for the entire thread, not just you Rex, btw) I'm arguing for equality. Marriage is not a religion specific thing, and for that reason religion should have no say in who is allowed to marry. That is up for the state to decide, in which same-sex marriage should be allowed because denying two consensual adults the right to marry is unconstitutional. The fact that some churches may not allow marriage inside of a church doesn't matter, but instead I'm arguing for the same legal rights (which includes the term "marriage" because excluding gays that right would contribute to "separate but equal" and would allow the rift between straights and gays to remain open).

Your snowball argument avoids the main point of discussion, because we're discussing two entirely different things. Your argument is for its own topic, and will not be discussed by me on this topic. Now, whether or not the definition is changed is not something bad. Previously the definition of marriage meant only two people of the same race are allowed to marry, but now we are allowed to have multiracial marriage. To have that happen, a majority of people's beliefs were crushed, by now we have no problem with that type of marriage. Just because it's a belief doesn't mean it's right, or at least I would assume that the belief that marriage should only be between a single race and opposite genders is something that could be considered wrong. Your problem is that you believe marriage is something religious, which it's not. It's a legal contract, in which the beliefs of religious people don't matter, because it's something the State deals with. You're sort of reinforcing the point of the snowball effect there. Wealth, race, sex, ???, ???. Technically I can marry my keyboard if I wanted to, it would be in my rights to do so. But that sounds stupid. In society there will have to be limits and for the sake of tradition (NOT religion) marriage should be based on a man and a woman. Civil unionships for legal rights should be given to all partners regardless of sexual orientation of course. As for the churches right to marry those who they choose, do they get special benefits of taxes or not?! Actually, what he was arguing and I'm arguing are two different things. He is arguing about using polygamy for more than two consensual adults, while I'm arguing for two. Arguing for more than two is taking things too far off topic to be used as a defense, and your argument is an adult and a consensual object. You can't technically marry your keyboard, because it simply can't even sign the marriage license. I'm suggesting limits also, but those limits should be between two consensual adults, whether they be gay/lesbian/straight or any other. The reason I say this is because in polygamy, divorce and other legal benefits would be an issue that would be too confusing for things to work, while two consensual adults allow for both easy marriage, divorce and legal benefits to work out.

Your snowball argument avoids the main point of discussion, because we're discussing two entirely different things. Your argument is for its own topic, and will not be discussed by me on this topic. Now, whether or not the definition is changed is not something bad. Previously the definition of marriage meant only two people of the same race are allowed to marry, but now we are allowed to have multiracial marriage. To have that happen, a majority of people's beliefs were crushed, by now we have no problem with that type of marriage. Just because it's a belief doesn't mean it's right, or at least I would assume that the belief that marriage should only be between a single race and opposite genders is something that could be considered wrong. Your problem is that you believe marriage is something religious, which it's not. It's a legal contract, in which the beliefs of religious people don't matter, because it's something the State deals with.

I think if you don't want it done by the Church you can do it in a courthouse, but I've never heard of anyone actually doing it. Where and how people marry isn't something that's all to common, and being married in a court house doesn't really have much to brag about anyways, so I would assume it's not often brought up. That's not the same as people not doing it however.

Marriage isn't religious though, and if it was religious then it shouldn't give legal benefits and everyone should be forced to be married through civil unions. What you're suggesting is that people are separate but equal, which was used to support segregation of communities. If you keep this things separated, then the whole between them can never be ignored. Marriage can be done by a judge in court.

If it wasn't for the government telling the church to think while using common sense, then we wouldn't have the abiility to have multi colored marriages, or people of different religions marry. Marriage gives legal benefits, and church and state are separated, so the whole benefit part is actually the government and not the church. Legally speaking, the Church shouldn't have the ability to say who is allowed to be married, because marriage is a legal contract, not religious. It is not religion who started the idea of religion, it's just something that people view as religious for some insane reason. Church recognized marriages mean nothing in the legal system. To receive benefits you need a state issued marriage license, which can be obtained without having an a wedding. Currently that is not even offered to same-sex couples, and the kind are similar are not recognized everywhere not give the same benefits of marriage. The government is not forcing it upon churches, because getting marriage doesn't need to be taken place inside of a church. The point of same-sex marriage is so that gay couples can receive the same rights as heterosexual couples. Love is important yes, but those benefits obtained from marriage are extremely important,.

The point of marriage is something beyond just love and taking care of children, it's a legal contract. By getting married, you're getting benefits from the State, and there are certain advantages you obtain relating to your partner. Such as if your partner is in the hospital, you're able to visit them more often. Marriage was also something to bind two families together, such as a King from one area marrying the Queen of another, and extending the boundaries of their land. Also, even from the idea of love, gay/lesbian/trans couples are able to love each other and adopt or use other methods for children (surrogate mothers for gay couples, surrogate fathers for lesbian). Same-Sex Marriage accomplishes a lot for people who need it.