Why not? There are plenty of people who are knowledgeable about different religions' conceptions of god, but they personally deem it impossible to know whether he truly exists.

 

 

 

I don't think he's saying that they don't know anything about God/gods, but that they profess that they don't know whether God/gods exist, thus making them ignorant (not knowing) in that one area.

Why not? There are plenty of people who are knowledgeable about different religions' conceptions of god, but they personally deem it impossible to know whether he truly exists.

 

 

 

I don't think he's saying that they don't know anything about God/gods, but that they profess that they don't know whether God/gods exist, thus making them ignorant (not knowing) in that one area.

 

 

 

Exactly.

 

 

 

:)

Why not? There are plenty of people who are knowledgeable about different religions' conceptions of god, but they personally deem it impossible to know whether he truly exists.

 

 

 

I don't think he's saying that they don't know anything about God/gods, but that they profess that they don't know whether God/gods exist, thus making them ignorant (not knowing) in that one area.

 

 

 

Despite the fact that you are going to disagree with me, I will make the point. NO ONE knows that god exists. You my believe that he exists to the point of ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅknowingÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

=D> I completely agree with you, Scruffy. I hate people bringing religion into a political debate.

 

 

 

I agree and disagree. I don't think there should be laws establishing a national religion or supporting one religion over another, however, since religion affects people's beliefs - and politics are made up of people's beliefs - there has to be a point where they come together.

 

 

 

For instance, I strongly believe that we should not kill or murder. I believe these things because I was raised knowing the Bible says we should not do them. Indoctrinated, if you will. But whatever the reason, I think these things should be outlawed so if given the chance, I will try and outlaw them.

 

 

 

Now other people, perhaps yourself, happen to agree with me on these issues. Some believe it because of religion, some believe it for other reasons. One person's reason is no better than anyone elses, so I have every right to bring my religious beliefs into politics as long as I'm not forcing someone to become a Christian.

 

 

 

I'm not even going to say "I think it should be this way because the Bible says so." It's not necessary. No one can really "prove" why they think something is wrong, so me thinking it is wrong is all I need to. If a secularist can attempt outlaw murder because they believe it's wrong, then a Christian can attempt to outlaw murder because they think it's wrong. Majority wins. :P

 

 

 

I think you're wrong, because I can in fact "prove" that murder is wrong, Starting with just the basic principles of democracy (not a religious belief or a personal sense of moral right and wrong). First, everybody has a basic (maybe God-given) right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We're allowed, entitled to be free. Freedom is right, anything else is wrong.

 

 

 

The basic premise of American government is that we willingly sacrifice some freedom in order that other freedoms remain safe. For example, I sacrifice the right to take whatever I want. By making this sacrifice (by writing and following the law against stealing), I know that others will do the same. This means I don't have to worry about people stealing my stuff. I am free to own property.

 

 

 

That is the basis for any law. Laws make small restrictions on liberty which, overall, guarantee greater liberty for all of society. Murder, obviously, is not acceptable in a free society. Murder destroys liberty and life. Therefore murder is morally wrong. So we write a law that restricts our freedom to kill whoever we want.

 

 

 

My logic is not religious, I wouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t even label it as "atheist." ItÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s common sense. It follows the same practical reasoning as treating others as you want to be treated. WhatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s good for everyone is good for you and/or me.

 

 

 

Therefore, in debating politics, the debate must be limited to this: whether something is harmful enough to society to be deemed immoral and illegal. Murder is an obvious case. We can prove that it is wrong. What a bonus that the bible agrees with us :D

 

 

 

 

 

What if I want to ban [gay marriage] because I think it's wrong and unnatural? Not because God told me so...but because I believe so.

 

 

 

Good question. Good point.

 

 

 

I would say, who are you to judge? Someone elseÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s homosexuality does not damage your life or society, so you have no reason to meddle in their life and tell them what is right and wrong. You would be restricting liberty for no purpose.

 

 

 

Or maybe I would just say, where's your proof? :P Because if you're not using a religious justification, then you are now playing my ball game. Your unsupported belief that gay marriage is wrong does not justify restricting the rights and liberty of a homosexual couple.

 

 

 

 

 

You think that I should keep my religion out of politics. But if religion is my reasoning for believing something - why is my reason any less than your reason? If you just believe something is wrong based on your on beliefs, then why is your own method of determining right and wrong better than mine?

 

 

 

Because my belief is based on a logical thought process. I can "prove" morality. Using the principles of democracy as my justification, I can prove that something is right or wrong. My "belief" comes from logical analysis instead of faith, which is inherently blind.

 

 

 

In the end, this means that religion can only be used to govern your personal life. Believe what you want to. Be faithful. But if you legislate on faith, you are restricting others' freedom of belief.

 

 

 

Finally, I would say that the president of the United States, to deserve the oval office, must be an American first and a Christian second (or Jew/Muslim/Buddhist/?). In his personal life, he may be as religious and pious as he wishes, but as president, he must act on morality that does not come from religious convictions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry it took me kind of a long time to respond. I guess I don't have as much free time as I thought I did. :? Plus IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ll be away for the weekend, so I canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t respond for a few days.

Okay, I wrote a really long response and then decided to delete it and keep this as short as possible.

 

 

 

1) I don't agree with your assertion that we can "prove" morality. I think you did a good job proving that things such as murder and theft are counter-productive to our society and democracy, and clearly go against our consitution and the philosophies of our founding fathers, primarily the Locke-influenced Jefferson. But - I don't think that you can prove whether being counter-productive to society is right or wrong. Right and wrong is based on a personal belief and you have to decide what that is. We can decide as a country that every law we should pass needs to help society in some way, but that doesn't mean we are proving any sense of morality.

 

 

 

2) I think you'll probably find that I agree with you a lot more than I let on. :P For instance, I'm 100% against any form of gay marriage ban because I think it is violating liberties. However, from a Christian perspective - I can see why some people would want it banned.

 

 

 

Many Christians believe that the rules God gave them, were given to us for our own good. For instance, Jews were ordered in the Old Testement to not eat pork because it was unclean. It turns out that in that time, they didn't know how to properly treat and cook the pork and eating it could get them very (fatally) sick.

 

 

 

On the point of homosexuality - it could be argued that it's a) counter-productive to the advancement of our population and that B) diseases such as AIDs are more common in the homosexual communities and those diseases are counter-productive to society. Please note that I'm not trying to argue for or against banning gay marriage - I'm merely stating one perspective.

 

 

 

To these Christians, their religious beliefs DO help society and democracies. By legislating these beliefs, it's possible that they are helping the community.

 

 

 

From this perspective, I don't see anything wrong with attempting to legislate their religious beliefs of right and wrong. Obviously I don't want a theocracy - obviously I am against any law respecting the establishment of a religion - but that doesn't mean I think that Christian beliefs should be out of politics because they are religious beliefs. I do, however, feel that if a group of Christians wanted to legislate their beliefs - they would have to show how it is productive to society and not that it's just something they believe.

 

 

 

I hope I make sense..and just to remind everyone:

 

 

 

I am not making a statement for or against ga marriage. It's merely an example I'm using it because of it's a current event that we can all relate to.

Why not? There are plenty of people who are knowledgeable about different religions' conceptions of god, but they personally deem it impossible to know whether he truly exists.

 

 

 

I don't think he's saying that they don't know anything about God/gods, but that they profess that they don't know whether God/gods exist, thus making them ignorant (not knowing) in that one area.

 

 

 

Despite the fact that you are going to disagree with me, I will make the point. NO ONE knows that god exists. You my believe that he exists to the point of ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅknowingÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

Why not? There are plenty of people who are knowledgeable about different religions' conceptions of god, but they personally deem it impossible to know whether he truly exists.

 

 

 

I don't think he's saying that they don't know anything about God/gods, but that they profess that they don't know whether God/gods exist, thus making them ignorant (not knowing) in that one area.

 

 

 

Despite the fact that you are going to disagree with me, I will make the point. NO ONE knows that god exists. You my believe that he exists to the point of ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅknowingÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

Why not? There are plenty of people who are knowledgeable about different religions' conceptions of god, but they personally deem it impossible to know whether he truly exists.

 

 

 

I don't think he's saying that they don't know anything about God/gods, but that they profess that they don't know whether God/gods exist, thus making them ignorant (not knowing) in that one area.

 

 

 

Despite the fact that you are going to disagree with me, I will make the point. NO ONE knows that god exists. You my believe that he exists to the point of ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅknowingÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

Why not? There are plenty of people who are knowledgeable about different religions' conceptions of god, but they personally deem it impossible to know whether he truly exists.

 

 

 

I don't think he's saying that they don't know anything about God/gods, but that they profess that they don't know whether God/gods exist, thus making them ignorant (not knowing) in that one area.

 

 

 

Despite the fact that you are going to disagree with me, I will make the point. NO ONE knows that god exists. You my believe that he exists to the point of ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅknowingÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

Why not? There are plenty of people who are knowledgeable about different religions' conceptions of god, but they personally deem it impossible to know whether he truly exists.

 

 

 

I don't think he's saying that they don't know anything about God/gods, but that they profess that they don't know whether God/gods exist, thus making them ignorant (not knowing) in that one area.

 

 

 

Despite the fact that you are going to disagree with me, I will make the point. NO ONE knows that god exists. You my believe that he exists to the point of ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅknowingÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

Or you can turn the question around say that no one konws if God DOESN'T exist. He just used a certain way of putting it to make it seem like he actually has an argument.

 

 

 

I could, but I'm not going to because it's irrelevant. Anyone who wants to partake in a serious discussion/debate about religion and politics needs to learn to not play word games like that. If we want to discuss what things we truly know and don't, we can make a thread for an epistemological discussion. It should be made clear that in any true debate about religion, it's accepted that the knowledge about someone's God is neither confirmed OR contested. The way people view religion is NOT in the same way as you might know something in science, and attempting to discern whether your know if God exists or not has no place in this kind of discussion.

 

 

 

EDIT: I encourage anyone who doesn't understand or agree with what I'm saying read the works of Mortimer J. Adler - specifically How to think about The Great Ideas.

You could, but then again, like you said it's irrelevant. What we should have done is made a new topic about philosophy but oh well. It is clear that science cannot prove or disprove God. Thus...

 

 

 

I think the question comes down to this:

 

If you believe in a god, which god do you choose and why?

 

 

 

New topic?

Isn't it fun to watch how easily we all go off on tangents? :P A simple etymological statement turned into the last two pages. :-s

 

 

 

I'm American. I'm a Christian, and I tend to be politically conservative. I'm against abortion, but I'm not opposed to gay marriage. I've got some issues with the war in Iraq, but I'm not completely opposed to it. As for economic issues, I don't know enough to have a stance. I don't support any party, though almost all of my family is Republican. The upcoming presidential election will be the first one I can vote in, and I'll examine the candidates' view and their parties' views when the time comes.

 

 

 

As you can probally tell, politics isn't of that much interest to me right now. Of course, once I'm able to vote, I'll be getting all the information I can.

Just to be clear. If you read through the previous posts the only reason I went into the "knowledge of god" debate was to refute the "ignorant of god" comment.

 

 

 

Back on track now :D

OK, Astra, you interested me. If you're a Christian, do you believe the Bible to be the infallible Word of God? (2 Timothy 3:16) If so, then how do you NOT oppose ga marriage? Romans 2. :-k

 

 

 

Just wondering!

OK, Astra, you interested me. If you're a Christian, do you believe the Bible to be the infallible Word of God? (2 Timothy 3:16) If so, then how do you NOT oppose ga marriage? Romans 2. :-k

 

 

 

Just wondering!

 

 

 

God, I wish you would just shut up and let people believe whatever they want to believe. Stop your preaching.

 

 

 

How about this: He believes in God, but simply DOESN'T CARE what other people do. AS IT SHOULD BE. Keep your nose in your business and out of other's. I'ts cool to believe in God, but as I've told you already, questioning other people's beliefs just because they differ from yours is BS. You seem to know this (I can tell by the WAY you ask, you feel need to reaffirm that you're "just curious", as opposed to being a judgemental, nosey person), but you ask anyways. Brain-washed by the Bible ftw....You know it's bad when you go against your better judgement just to slap people in the face with your beliefs. Just let it go! A Christian believes in God for HIMSELF, not for others. Anyone who believes for others is just a cultist, nothing more.

 

 

 

And for the love of God, why do you always quote scripture and give the verses? As if someone on the other end is actually going to look it up in the Bible to check and see if you're lying? Come on now.

OK, Astra, you interested me. If you're a Christian, do you believe the Bible to be the infallible Word of God? (2 Timothy 3:16) If so, then how do you NOT oppose ga marriage? Romans 2. :-k

 

 

 

Just wondering!

 

 

 

God, I wish you would just shut up and let people believe whatever they want to believe. Stop your preaching.

 

 

 

How about this: He believes in God, but simply DOESN'T CARE what other people do. AS IT SHOULD BE. Keep your nose in your business and out of other's. I'ts cool to believe in God, but as I've told you already, questioning other people's beliefs just because they differ from yours is BS. You seem to know this (I can tell by the WAY you ask, you feel need to reaffirm that you're "just curious", as opposed to being a judgemental, nosey person), but you ask anyways. Brain-washed by the Bible ftw....You know it's bad when you go against your better judgement just to slap people in the face with your beliefs. Just let it go! A Christian believes in God for HIMSELF, not for others. Anyone who believes for others is just a cultist, nothing more.

 

 

 

And for the love of God, why do you always quote scripture and give the verses? As if someone on the other end is actually going to look it up in the Bible to check and see if you're lying? Come on now.

 

 

 

The Bible says we should judge other Christians in order that we are giving across the right message to non-believers. Since Astralinre says he's a Christian - it's very healthy and reasonable for piano to challenge him. I'm not saying piano is right in his belief - but it's good for Christians to keep each other on their toes so are giving the right message to other people.

 

 

 

You clearly know very little about the Christian faith, as shown in your philosophy of "butting out of other people's business" and your reference to being "brain washed" by the Bible.

 

 

 

It's also important to quote scriptures because scriptures are the basis for what Christians believe. If you say something from the Bible, but have no scripture to support it - it's useless.

 

 

 

Statements like you just made show how little you know about Christianity - so when two Christians are attempting to discuss their theology, I would recommend you not voice your uninformed opinion.

First off, allow me to say that I do not support it, I merely don't oppose it. However, I do believe that practising homosexuality is morally wrong.

 

 

 

The way I see it, allowing them to enter the legal contract of marriage cannot do any more harm to the institution of marriage than a 50 percent divorce rate and rampant promiscuity are already doing. Let them make and break their vows just like everybody else.

 

 

 

I don't believe the Church should recognize such marriages, but the government can define its own contracts however it wants to.

 

 

 

Since I'm tired, about to go to bed, and don't feel like explaining myself fully, allow me to quote Paradox from the teddekker.com forums, who has similar views to mine and happened to make a post about this today.

 

 

 

In the past few days I have come to some personal realizations. The first and most important being that it means very different things to be legally married and to have that marriage recognized by a religious institution. I never agreed that allowing gay people to get married would destroy the institution of marriage. I do not see how allowing two homosexual people who love each other to get married would degrade marriage in a way that a 50% divorce rate, drive thru marriage chapels in Las Vegas, and Dennis Rodman and Carmen Electra had not already. I came to understand that allowing these people to get a marriage license was not forcing churches in any way to change their opinions on the matter of homosexuality. Legally speaking, marriage is a contract and nothing more. What is so sacred about that? Why do we feel the need to exercise this form of "tough love" on this group of people and not on others who are guilty of things much more heinous?

 

 

 

Another argument that I disagree with that is involved in this debate deals with rights (for those keeping track, that's one argument from each side that I have felt had no merit). Marriage is not a right, and I strongly disagree with those that hold that it is. This current issue of homosexual marriage is in no way directly comparable to the civil rights movement of the 1960s in which blacks and other minorities were fighting to be treated as equally human as whites. No one is saying that gays should not be allowed to get married on the basis that they are not as human as straight people are. In my opinion homosexuals are not being descriminated against. They are merely not satisfied with the current legal definition of marriage.

 

 

 

Marriage is not a right, and gays are not being descriminated against or treated as less than human. This brings me to my second significant realization: Since marriage is a legally nothing more than a contract recognized by the government, the definition of who can enter into such a contract is essentially arbitrary. This could be compared with an organization like the Home Owners Association deciding that if you live in a certain neighborhood you are allowed to put up a fence as long as it is stained/finished/painted a natural wood color. This obviously prevents people from putting up a white picket fence. People wishing to put up white picket fences are not being discriminated against, they just can't put up the fence they would like. There is nothing illegal about the HOA making this arbitrary decision as long as it is within their realm of influence. Homosexuals are not being prevented from getting married, they just are not currently allowed to enter into marriage with the type of person they would like to.

 

 

 

As you may have guessed at this point, I am no longer opposed to allowing homosexuals to get married. I am not necessarily in favor of gay marriage in the same way that I am not necessarily in favor of people becoming NASCAR drivers, but I don't have a problem with it. I don't think it is illegal or unconstitutional for the government to prevent homosexuals from getting married, but I think that eventually they will allow it. I think it would prevent a huge uproar if they called it something other than "marriage," but I don't think that's very likely to happen. What I think the people who are opposed to gay marriage need to begin doing is making clear the distinction between what it means to be married legally and what it means to be married in the eyes of the church.

 

 

 

Tigra, cool your jets. Piano just asked me a question. There was no reason whatsoever for you to get involved and flame him. If I had a problem with it, which I don't, then it would be better to let me deal with it that to jump in and bash Piano the first chance you had. Besides, your assessment of me not caring what others do is way off. What good does love for God do if it does not yield love and concern for others?

 

 

 

(Thanks, Ghost. You saved me some typing.) :)

Boy, Tigra, you got really upset there. I'm not judging Astra or calling him a terrible person for disagreeing with me. Actually, we're friends on these forums and enjoy talking with each other. But you probably didn't know that. :wink:

 

 

 

As for Astra's comment, I would probably say that marriage is much more than a legal document binding the husband and wife (or should I say 2 people) together. Marriage is a sacred covenant between two people, which is why the Bible says one should save yourself for marriage.

 

 

 

Consummation is an act of unifying the two physically whereas marriage unifies the two spiritually in the eyes of the government and in the eyes of the church and God Himself. Emotionally is a whole other issue which really can't be dealt with unless the two people have new natures (if you're confused, please ask me).

 

 

 

If marriage is, as I believe, a sacred covenant, then everything about remaining a virgin until marriage makes complete sense. This is why God is strongly against divorce, for you are breaking the vow you made in front of God, between the two of you, and others.

 

 

 

Marriage is the earthly representation of our relationship to God. You know, God is pretty big into this whole covenantial relationship.

As for Astra's comment, I would probably say that marriage is much more than a legal document binding the husband and wife (or should I say 2 people) together. Marriage is a sacred covenant between two people, which is why the Bible says one should save yourself for marriage.

 

 

 

Where would you say that leaves non-Christians who get married? Should it even be legal for non-Christians to get married?

As for Astra's comment, I would probably say that marriage is much more than a legal document binding the husband and wife (or should I say 2 people) together. Marriage is a sacred covenant between two people, which is why the Bible says one should save yourself for marriage.

 

 

 

Where would you say that leaves non-Christians who get married? Should it even be legal for non-Christians to get married?

 

 

 

Um, of course. It's between two people...not just between two Christians. I think that because Christians have new natures (2 Corinthians I think..."the old has gone; the new has come") it works best. Where did you get that idea that they couldn't?

I am Christian and I would like to lean to the left, but all the major parties seem to occupy the middle now. To me it seems that Labour and Conservative are the same thing.

 

I don't have a problem with gay marriage or abortion (not totally sure on abortions).

 

My religious views are this - I believe in God, the Resurection and an Afterlife. I do not believe in the majority of the Bible stories. I think that they should be taken as metaphors for the way we should live our lives, not at face value. The Bible is a good read for guidance but it is un-escapedly created by Humans not God.

As for Astra's comment, I would probably say that marriage is much more than a legal document binding the husband and wife (or should I say 2 people) together. Marriage is a sacred covenant between two people, which is why the Bible says one should save yourself for marriage.

 

 

 

Where would you say that leaves non-Christians who get married? Should it even be legal for non-Christians to get married?

 

 

 

Um, of course. It's between two people...not just between two Christians. I think that because Christians have new natures (2 Corinthians I think..."the old has gone; the new has come") it works best. Where did you get that idea that they couldn't?

 

 

 

Well, according to the idea that "marriage is much more than a legal document binding a husband and wife" and that it "is a sacred convenant between two people, which is why the Bible says one should save yourself for marriage" - non-Christians wouldn't be able to partake in this convenant. They don't believe in the Bible...they don't necessarily believe it's a sacred covenant. So wouldn't non-Christians getting married be just as sinful as gay marriage? So should we ban that?

 

 

 

I think the position both Astra and I take is this: people all over the world have been getting married where Christianity doesn't exist. In the Orient, people were getting without the influence of Christianity at all. What is sacred to Christanity is not the idea of "marriage" - because let's face it - we're not the only ones doing that - it's marriage through the church - as Astra said. If the government wants to legally bind to people together of the same sex, go for it. It's not less a sacred convenant than the government binding together two people who aren't Christians and therefore, don't believe it's a sacred convenant.

Well, according to the idea that "marriage is much more than a legal document binding a husband and wife" and that it "is a sacred convenant between two people, which is why the Bible says one should save yourself for marriage" - non-Christians wouldn't be able to partake in this convenant. They don't believe in the Bible...they don't necessarily believe it's a sacred covenant. So wouldn't non-Christians getting married be just as sinful as gay marriage? So should we ban that?

 

 

 

 

Just because they don't believe it's sacred doesn't mean it isn't. It's like saying "I don't believe in gravity so it doesn't exist."

 

 

 

Non-Christians should get married! The Bible condemns promiscuity and there's nothing wrong with getting married. I'm still confused why you're thinking non-Christians can't get married. They can still enter into the covenant between God and each other...they just may refuse to believe in God but the covenant still exists.

 

 

 

I think the position both Astra and I take is this: people all over the world have been getting married where Christianity doesn't exist. In the Orient, people were getting without the influence of Christianity at all. What is sacred to Christanity is not the idea of "marriage" - because let's face it - we're not the only ones doing that - it's marriage through the church - as Astra said. If the government wants to legally bind to people together of the same sex, go for it. It's not less a sacred convenant than the government binding together two people who aren't Christians and therefore, don't believe it's a sacred convenant.

 

 

 

I understand that about people getting married all over the world. But it's something that God put into the heart of everyone who is human. The desire to be love and be loved. Obviously the greatest representation in this physical world is marriage. It's why so many get married and why marriage has been around since the creation of the world.

 

 

 

The government legally binding two people of the same sex isn't a marriage because a marriage means so much more. It's a covenant between the two in front of each other and God. The government recognizes it for legal reasons, but it means much more.

 

 

 

That's all I'm saying. Marriage is much more than a legal document. And because it is, God has set guidelines for it.

To me, a marriage is a relation between two people. They love and care for each other.

 

 

 

I am half opposed to homose*ual marriages. They can marry if they want. But I dont like them doing stuff publicly. It's kinda distrubing two men kissing each other at a resturant...They do whatever they want in their house, privately.