What's your religion and why?

[Ray Jones]

Originally posted by rccar328

Christianity is all about personal choice. We can choose God, or we can choose sin. Christianity is pro-choice, but one choice is right while the other is wrong.

 

maybe right or wrong from christan point of view. and still there is the choice of both, not god and not sin, left. or both, god and sin.

 

 

 

Without God, there is no argument against gay marriage.

 

Instantly, now, people assume that banning gay marriage the forcing of Christian values upon the masses. But think about our most fundamental laws - if we can allow gay marriage, what keeps us from allowing bigamy, or polygamy, or any of a number of other acts.

 

yes. and what would be the problem with it? as long as every person involved to it is fine with it.. where is the problem?

 

As the moral line keeps moving closer to moral relativism, eventually, our most basic laws (laws against murder, rape, assault, theft, etc.) will have no meaning because they, too, are based on Christian morals.

 

but christianity cannot claim rights to the immorality of murder, rape and such. these "laws" basically based on something like "rules for a comfortable alltogether in a larger group of hairless monkeys". it's nothing christianity invented.

also just because christianity says something is "wrong", this must not mean it's really "wrong".

 

We have seen over the course of the years, black-and-white moral values blend into an ever-growing grey area. When every behavior falls into a grey area, though, moral values have no meaning, and the laws based on those values become meaningless, as well.

 

maybe black and white moral values are as effective as the grey area. perhabs wrong and right only works in logic.

 

Those of you who say that you are “forced” into a religion aren’t being forced to believe, you’re only being forced to attend a certain church or school. It’s still your choice whether to believe in that faith or not.

 

being forced is being forced. and you dont get attended to a certain school for no reason.

perhabs faith and school should be TWO things.

[rccar328]

I'm not saying that Christians (or Jews) invented moral values - I'm saying that these values exist, they must be maintained in order to keep a functioning society, and that these values are a major part of the Christian faith.

 

I understand that there is a major difference between gay marriage and rape. What I'm saying is that the moral lines are continually being blurred into a massive gray area that is leading us into moral relativism.

 

The danger of this is that at some point, all laws are based on some kind of moral standard. When that moral standard is removed (such as in moral relativism), governmental laws have no meaning, cannot be enforced, and anarchy reigns.

 

Finally, I wasn't trying to justify forcing someone into a church or religious school, I was trying to encourage those who are forced to go to church or religious school to make their own decision on what to believe, rather than letting someone else force them into it.

 

Religion is a personal choice - we choose what to believe (or not believe). I have chosen Christianity, one of the basic precepts of which is the belief that the most important choice in life is the choice between Heaven and Hell - to choose Jesus and go to Heaven, or to choose something else and go to Hell. Am I going to force you into this? No. It's your choice. You may not like my beliefs, but they are mine, and you are free to choose otherwise.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad

Buddhism- Buddhism is a philosophy, not a religion(although a LOT of people transform it into a religion). You don't believe in anything, you just follow a certain code.

 

 

Actually, Buddhism is a religion that has a philosophy (as do most religions). It has two major factions: Theravada, or little raft, which is the pure form and the way of the monk who is devouted entirely to reaching Arhat; and Mahayana, or big raft, which is the form most accepted by the masses.

 

I go into more detail in this same thread at this post.

 

But rest assured, it is a religion. There are many definitions of religion, but the fundamental elements present in all religions are: religious ideology (supernatural beliefs and feelings, etc.), ritual, and social organization.

 

Buddha emphasized that a god didn't exist and therefore prayer was unnecessary. What was important was the 4 Noble Truths and following the 8-Fold Path (See the link to my other post above). This the Theravada form of Buddhism.

 

Mahayana, on the other hand, consider Buddha to be lord and he is prayed to.

 

That's the very abbreviated version, but perhaps you get the idea.

 

Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad

But I do agree about the few fundamentalists who give Christianity a bad name.

 

Unfortunately, the "few" fundamentalists in the christian religion are more than a "few." There numbers are growing and I postulated here in the Senate Chambers that Bush, himself, was overly fundamental or, at the very least, attempting to appeal to the christian fundamentalists.

 

Their political bases of fundamentalists are growing throughout the world as an answer to secularism and the perceived decline in moral values. Whether it be islamic or christian fundamentalists are a danger to societies.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by rccar328

I'm not saying that Christians (or Jews) invented moral values - I'm saying that these values exist, they must be maintained in order to keep a functioning society, and that these values are a major part of the Christian faith.

 

So, in other words, human morals existed prior to christianity and were adopted by judeo-christian leaders.

 

Originally posted by rccar328

What I'm saying is that the moral lines are continually being blurred into a massive gray area that is leading us into moral relativism.

 

But morality is relative. There are many, many taboos and morals throughout the world that apply very well to the culture they are representative of, but would be considered strange to you and I. Well... perhaps not I, since this is my field of study.

 

In counter arguing gay marriage in an early post you indicated that if gay marriage were allowed, then where does society draw the line? Why not polygamy, right?

 

But in many cultures of the world, polygamy and polyandry are very accepted and considered moral. Moreover, its a necessary tradition that helps control land inheritances (I won't go into details, but consider a father with a large parcel of land, many sons, he dies, each son gets land.... it won't continue to work after a few generations).

 

I will tell you that it is benefit to society that should dictate the morals, not religion. Religion will resist the change because of the conservative nature of nearly every world religion, but in the end, the benefit to society wins.

 

In regard to gay marriage, there is a benefit to society (albeit one that many refuse to acknowledge, examine, or accept), but with polygamy or polyandry, there is little benefit in a complex stratified society like our own. Therefore, it will likely remain taboo while gay marriage will likely win out in the end.

 

Morals and taboos are relative. But relative to the benefits and liabilities that a society experiences them.

 

Originally posted by rccar328

When that moral standard is removed (such as in moral relativism), governmental laws have no meaning, cannot be enforced, and anarchy reigns.

 

There's little evidence to support that that I can see. The laws of the society are a reflection of the moralities and taboos of the society. If a society, as a whole, sees no taboo in allowing gays to form civil unions or marry, the moral thing to do is not impede them. The laws simply have to change to reflect the new moral standards. A society that fails to do this, fails to progress through time. So-called "traditional family values" are neither traditional nor practical in this country.

 

There is no society in the world, in which it is considered acceptable to murder one's parents in order to claim their property or wealth. This, when one considers the number of religions and beliefs in the world suggests that there are some basic humanist values.

 

Crying foul when society discovers that a norm that was previously considered taboo is simply an cult artifact that has lost it's value to society is an impediment to progress.

 

Originally posted by rccar328

Religion is a personal choice - we choose what to believe (or not believe).

 

I'm afraid I must disagree. Religion is brainwashing. Pure and simple.

 

Before you get all worked up, I'm not singling out christianity, I'm lumping all cults and superstitions together. I realize that you just took offense to my use of "cult," but according to Merriam-Webster's first two entries, I'm spot on.

 

From the moment a child is born, religious indoctrination begins with most societies: baptisms, naming ceremonies, circumsiscions, etc. Throughout the early years of a child's life, they are taught the very basics of their religion. It's indoctrination. And it takes some very serious critical thinking ability to overcome it.

[Kain]

All of this Christian and Jewish and Islamic moral reasoning is a bit aggravating.

 

they must be maintained in order to keep a functioning society, and that these values are a major part of the Christian faith

 

Lets drop the moral postering, shall we?

 

Any 'moral' found in the bible is, as stated before, a universal moral. What does this show us? That this book mearly feeds on the peoples need for SOMETHING to exist at a higher level than them (so basically, it feeds on one of our most basic instincts; fear of what lies beyond) and what any person, religious or not, holds to be morally true (the whole no murder blah blah). Of course, from a Fundamentalists attitude, being non-religious means that you have no morals and are just a walking bag of sin. And this whole up-in-arms against gays brings to mind one word - Ignorant. Why? To each his/her own happiness. If Christ's mission was to make all happy, then why damn those who are different on so small a matter?

[rccar328]

So, in other words, human morals existed prior to christianity and were adopted by judeo-christian leaders.

 

Well, yes. God created morals prior to the creation of humans.

 

But morality is relative. There are many, many taboos and morals throughout the world that apply very well to the culture they are representative of

 

True. But according to the Christian viewpoint, there is one God who is Lord over all creation, and it is His morals that make up the basis of true right and wrong. The fact that moral values vary between societies does not make those values the

right values - they must be defined by God, not men.

 

But in many cultures of the world, polygamy and polyandry are very accepted and considered moral. Moreover, its a necessary tradition that helps control land inheritances

 

I won't dispute this. But once again, according to Christianity, morality is defined by God, not by men, and not by society.

 

There's little evidence to support that that I can see. The laws of the society are a reflection of the moralities and taboos of the society. If a society, as a whole, sees no taboo in allowing gays to form civil unions or marry, the moral thing to do is not impede them. The laws simply have to change to reflect the new moral standards. A society that fails to do this, fails to progress through time. So-called "traditional family values" are neither traditional nor practical in this country.

 

Key phrase here: "that I can see." When you hold to moral relativism, it becomes difficult to see moral degridation because you choose not to judge the moral values of others (except, in this case, the "traditional family values"). If our society, as a whole, saw no taboo in allowing gays to marry, it would not be an issue. The fact is, though, that a large number of Americans hold to traditional family values, and are opposed to gay marriage. You may not see these people frequently or wish to acknowledge their viewpoint, but I believe that a silent majority exists who oppose gay marriage on moral grounds.

 

The idea that traditional family values are not traditional or practical is a fallacy. They are traditional because they have been handed down from generation to generation. They are family values because they center around the family. As our culture constantly becomes faster and faster about every aspect of our lifestyles, the passing down of these values has been drastically reduced, but that does not mean that these values are not practical in our society.

 

Traditional family values reinforce the family unit, which gives children a basis to learn how to form a healthy family when they leave home. They are about parents helping their children, supporting them, and promoting a healthy familial relationship. One of the reasons that so many families across America are in shambles is because parents become so preoccupied with carreers and money that they abandon these family values.

 

What's more, one of the reasons that the American education system is such a mess is because so many families have abandoned traditional family values. Teaching children cannot only be limited to a school, it must be supported by teaching from the parents. The reason that our education system has not improved despite the billions of dollars that the government has poured into it is because it doesn't matter how skilled a teacher is, a child's education will not be complete without the help of the parents, and many parents are not willing to help educate their children, believing that it is solely the teacher's job. The abandonment of traditional family values is shown through our education system and is apparent in the degradation of the family unit across America. These values are percieved as being impractical because our society is based too much on money and not enough on strengthening the family.

 

Religion is brainwashing. Pure and simple.

 

It is true that there is indoctrination in any religion, but it is the right of the parents to pass their values down to their children, and if those values stem from their religion, then they have the right to bring their child up in that religion. At the most fundamental level, though, every person can choose what to believe. And it doesn't always take "serious critical thinking abilities" to overcome it - all it takes is a willingness to choose otherwise. I know - I have a brother and sister who felt that Christianity was oppressive (they didn't want to live within the Christian moral system), so they said, "to heck with it, I'll live how I want."

 

When I turned away from Christianity for a time, it was for the same reason - I felt oppressed by the moral code that I felt was imposed on me by my religion and my family. I decided to live my life the way I wanted to (which is the prevalent view in society), and I seriously screwed up my life because of it. In the end, I saw that those moral values are not there to oppress me, but to protect me and keep me from doing something stupid.

 

Why do you think sexually transmitted diseases are so prevalent in our society? It's because people have decided to abandon those traditional family values and have promiscuous sex outside of marriage.

 

And this whole up-in-arms against gays brings to mind one word - Ignorant. Why? To each his/her own happiness. If Christ's mission was to make all happy, then why damn those who are different on so small a matter?

 

For one thing, nowhere in the Bible does it say that Christ's mission was to make all happy. Where you got this idea I don't know, but it is the true ignorance here. Christians are against homosexuality because according to the Bible, homosexuality is sin (check Romans chapter 1 - there are also a fes other verses, but I can't remember offhand where they are).

 

Christ's mission was to die as a sacrifice to redeem the sins of the world. In the Jewish tradition, animals were sacrificed in order to redeem their sins, and Christ, who lived his entire life without sinning, came as the ultimate sacrifice in order to redeem all people. The only requirement is the acceptance of that redemption and the acknowledgment of Christ as the son of the only God.

[Tyrion]

True. But according to the Christian viewpoint, there is one God who is Lord over all creation, and it is His morals that make up the basis of true right and wrong. The fact that moral values vary between societies does not make those values the

right values - they must be defined by God, not men.

 

But how do you know that the values written by four men- John, Luke, Mark, and Matthew- are the values of God? Even if you think they were guided by divine spirts, they were still man-written. So the only real way to prove that they are God's morals is for him to come down and say that they are his morals.

 

Key phrase here: "that I can see." When you hold to moral relativism, it becomes difficult to see moral degridation because you choose not to judge the moral values of others (except, in this case, the "traditional family values"). If our society, as a whole, saw no taboo in allowing gays to marry, it would not be an issue. The fact is, though, that a large number of Americans hold to traditional family values, and are opposed to gay marriage. You may not see these people frequently or wish to acknowledge their viewpoint, but I believe that a silent majority exists who oppose gay marriage on moral grounds.

 

On moral grounds. Ahem, the day that gays cannot legally marry because of morals, is the day that I know that the founding fathers would be turning in the graves.

 

The idea that traditional family values are not traditional or practical is a fallacy. They are traditional because they have been handed down from generation to generation. They are family values because they center around the family. As our culture constantly becomes faster and faster about every aspect of our lifestyles, the passing down of these values has been drastically reduced, but that does not mean that these values are not practical in our society.

 

What traditional family values? Those of the the Pigmies, Christians, Jews, Islams, Buddhists, or Shinduists? There should never have to be a single set of values.

 

 

Traditional family values reinforce the family unit, which gives children a basis to learn how to form a healthy family when they leave home. They are about parents helping their children, supporting them, and promoting a healthy familial relationship. One of the reasons that so many families across America are in shambles is because parents become so preoccupied with carreers and money that they abandon these family values.

 

One question, what happens if these family values end up being corrupted by a generation, and thus teaches these values to thier children. Can you honestly say these are healthy values, although they are "traditional"?

 

What's more, one of the reasons that the American education system is such a mess is because so many families have abandoned traditional family values. Teaching children cannot only be limited to a school, it must be supported by teaching from the parents. The reason that our education system has not improved despite the billions of dollars that the government has poured into it is because it doesn't matter how skilled a teacher is, a child's education will not be complete without the help of the parents. The abandonment of traditional family values is shown through our education system and the degradation of the family unit across America. These values are percieved as being impractical because our society is based too much on money and not enough on strengthening the family.

 

That's what you get for living in a capitalistic country, unfortunately. You dont get brownie points for giving up that job to someone who loses it, you just end up starving. Look at the government, they want to cut taxes, besides the fact that those taxes will go to good use. Why? Because you want that game system, or because you want that big screen tv.

 

When I turned away from Christianity for a time, it was for the same reason - I felt oppressed by the moral code that I felt was imposed on me by my religion and my family. I decided to live my life the way I wanted to (which is the prevalent view in society), and I seriously screwed up my life because of it. In the end, I saw that those moral values are not there to oppress me, but to protect me and keep me from doing something stupid.

 

You are still living the way you want to, no one is forcing you to accept The Bible. You can live the way you want, the only real moral value you need in life is the Golden Rule. Which is in the very core of every human. I dont need a book or religion to tell me what to do and what not to do. I can form my own moralities too, and use common sense to keep me from doing something stupid.

 

Why do you think sexually transmitted diseases are so prevalent in our society? It's because people have decided to abandon those traditional family values and have promiscuous sex outside of marriage.[/qupte]

 

It's not because they are abandoning tradition family values, it's because they're acting like dumbasses! I dont want to have kids before I'm fully educated, I dont want to have alot of diseases. That is why I wont have sex until I'm married, since it proves that the person I'm in love with really does care for me that much. I dont need traditional values to tell me it's wrong.

 

For one thing, nowhere in the Bible does it say that Christ's mission was to make all happy. Where you got this, I don't know, but it is the true ignorance. Christians are against homosexuality because according to the Bible, homosexuality is sin (check Romans chapter 1 - there is also another verse, but I can't remember offhand where it is).

 

Because the bible is against homosexuality, Christian have to be against homosexuality?? If The Bible said to jump off a bridge, would you jump off a bridge? It's the same excact process as thinking as peer pressure.

 

I myself find homosexaulity gross, and wouldnt do it at all. Do I still think homosexuals should be able to do it? Yes. Do I think that they should have the same rights as heterosexuals? Yes. Do I think that they deserve to be judged on thier preferrences, as long as they do not directly hurt you? No. I am not a homophobe, I do not mind homosexuals, I just do not have the same preferences as them. Which is excactly what right-wing evangelists are trying to do, change the preferences of people because they beieve it is wrong.

 

Christ's mission was to die as a sacrifice to redeem the sins of the world. In the Jewish tradition, animals were sacrificed in order to redeem their sins, and Christ, who lived his entire life without sinning, came as the ultimate sacrifice in order to redeem all people. The only requirement is the acceptance of that redemption and the acknowledgment of Christ as the son of the only God.

 

Woo! I can murder, adulter, rape, pillage, torture, bully, and biggot as much as I want, as long as I accept the redemption and the acknowledgement of Christ as the only son of god. After all, Christ wipes all my sins at death.

[Kain]

Originally posted by rccar328

Christ's mission was to die as a sacrifice to redeem the sins of the world. In the Jewish tradition, animals were sacrificed in order to redeem their sins, and Christ, who lived his entire life without sinning, came as the ultimate sacrifice in order to redeem all people. The only requirement is the acceptance of that redemption and the acknowledgment of Christ as the son of the only God.

 

So your saying that as long as the gay wo/man is Christian, they can be redeemed, or are you not? One can't change what the heart desires after all. For the sake of debate, lets say I was gay and I was also a devout Christian with a fellow gay Christian. Now would we be condemned because we feel lust for the same sex, even though we're devout Christians? Because from what I've figured from most religious arguments I've had, homosexuals are Damned, through and through. Isn't it a bit hypocritical?

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by rccar328

Well, yes. God created morals prior to the creation of humans.

 

Or... Ba'al created morals. Or Wakanatanka created morals when he created Father Sky and Mother Earth. Or perhaps Shiva created the world so he could have something to destroy occasionally (earthquakes, etc.) and morality came from his partner Vishhnu.

 

Christianity is no more valid than either of these fates to me, and therefore just as irrelevant.

 

Originally posted by rccar328

True. But according to the Christian viewpoint, there is one God who is Lord over all creation, and it is His morals that make up the basis of true right and wrong.

 

Which is only proved via the mythology that surrounds the religion of christianity. Moreover, every religion has morality that makes up the "basis of true right and wrong." Therfore, an unbiased observer could easily conclude that world mythologies provide humanity with morals and values relative to their cultures.

 

Originally posted by rccar328

The fact that moral values vary between societies does not make those values the

right values - they must be defined by God, not men.

 

God becomes irrelevant in a discussion with me since I don't follow the ethnocentric and religiocentric impediments to worldview that theists do. Humanity is what matters, not the metaphysical.

 

Originally posted by rccar328

I won't dispute this. But once again, according to Christianity, morality is defined by God, not by men, and not by society.

 

Morality is defined by all gods and religions. That's the point. By and large, the basic morals of the world are similar throughout all cultures: taboos against killing, incest, rape, cannibalism, theft, etc. There are, however, exceptions to many of these taboos, even in christianity.

 

Originally posted by rccar328

Key phrase here: "that I can see."

 

And, to date, you have yet to demonstrate otherwise, as I shall point out below.

 

Originally posted by rccar328

When you hold to moral relativism, it becomes difficult to see moral degridation because you choose not to judge the moral values of others

 

Or.. I could rephrase that: when you refuse to recognize that relativism exists with morality (that ethics are relative to the social construct), your sense of morality is flawed by it's refusal to adapt to new social constructs. Moreover, you become a ethnocentric observer to the world. Christianity has been wrong in it's moral worldview in the past (many times), so therefore it is likely to be wrong again.

 

Originally posted by rccar328

If our society, as a whole, saw no taboo in allowing gays to marry, it would not be an issue. The fact is, though, that a large number of Americans hold to traditional family values, and are opposed to gay marriage.

 

You know, it occurs to me that if you substitute "gays to marry" with "blacks to vote," your argument would fit right in during a debate in the 1930's in this same great nation.

 

Originally posted by rccar328

The idea that traditional family values are not traditional or practical is a fallacy.

 

Well... let's examine the "traditional" family values of our great nation.

 

Originally posted by rccar328

They are traditional because they have been handed down from generation to generation.

 

Actually... that might not be true. I don't think that the values were practical for even two generations (though, undoubtedly the more affluant of our country were able to ebrace the value of the "nuclear" family)

 

Originally posted by rccar328

They are family values because they center around the family.

 

That's a bit vague, but I'm assuming you mean the "nuclear family" model of father, mother and children with dad working, mom taking care of the house and children going off to school, etc.

 

This model only really emerged in the 1950's following WWII with the change in the way real estate was marketed. The advent of the suburb and easily manufactured homes made it possible for families to buy homes (especially since the husbands returned to their wives, who had saved money while working in factories in thei absences).

 

Prior to that, and throughout the rest of the world, traditional family value meant that families lived in extended family units in large houses with grandparents, uncles, aunts, cousins, etc. under the same roof.

 

But for a brief period in our nation's history, when women's equality was still a question, and racial equality was an exclamation, there existed this perfect vision of good, wholesome family values.

 

Originally posted by rccar328

As our culture constantly becomes faster and faster about every aspect of our lifestyles, the passing down of these values has been drastically reduced, but that does not mean that these values are not practical in our society.

 

Again, very vague. Which values. I fail to see how "civil unions/gay marriage" can be the linchpin value to it all, or even how it affects the rest of the society in a negative manner.

 

Originally posted by rccar328

Traditional family values reinforce the family unit, which gives children a basis to learn how to form a healthy family when they leave home.

 

Again, I must stress that one, maybe two generations doesn't really constitute a tradition. The real tradition is that the extended family is present and this is a tradition that goes back, perhaps millions of years.

 

Originally posted by rccar328

They are about parents helping their children, supporting them, and promoting a healthy familial relationship. One of the reasons that so many families across America are in shambles is because parents become so preoccupied with carreers and money that they abandon these family values.

 

You've got it all wrong. The reason that families across America are in a shambles is because of the consumer culture that we've created for ourselves and the fact that we abondoned the real traditions of the family long ago and replaced it with an ideal that could never be attained. Parents have no choice but be pre-occupied with careers. A car note (or two), plus a mortgage... add a kid... it becomes a real dillema. And it becomes a situation that demands talent to handle.

 

Talent shouldn't be the winning or losing factor in raising kids or maintaining a family. But the consumer oriented nature of our market system is to blame for the problems in the family, in addition to the out-right abandonment of the extended family.

 

Originally posted by rccar328

These values are percieved as being impractical because our society is based too much on money and not enough on strengthening the family.

 

I cannot disagree. But I would argue that the fault isn't that want to earn money as much as we need to. The era of the "housewife" has come and gone for two reasons: 1) women are no longer regarded as inferior and have the same rights to "pursue happiness" as men; 2) it isn't fiscally practical if car loans and mortgages are to be met and still feed the family, even without considering retirement/college savings.

 

Originally posted by rccar328

In the end, I saw that those moral values are not there to oppress me, but to protect me and keep me from doing something stupid.

 

I don't embrace religious doctrine. Nor do many people I know. Not surprisingly, they are among the most moral people I have ever met. Their ethics are solid.

 

Morality isn't a domain of the religious, but rather a construct of humanity (as is religion).

 

Originally posted by rccar328

Why do you think sexually transmitted diseases are so prevalent in our society? It's because people have decided to abandon those traditional family values and have promiscuous sex outside of marriage.

 

That is perhaps the most ludicrous thing you've written in your entire post. Do you seriously think that diseases like syphallis, ghonorrea, and chlamydia are recent afflictions? Syphallis was known as the "French disease" in the 15th century. STD's were very prevalent in history and much has been written on them.

 

The advent of AIDS in our modern era, likewise, has nothing to do with the "breakdown of the family." It is a result of the inconnectivity of the globe and the first major outbreaks occured at major cities that had international connections via airports, etc. If the "instant connection" to global cities existed several hundred years ago in the way airports link them today, diseases like syphallis or small pox would have been even significant than they already were.

 

If you are seriously going to blame diseases on the breakdown of the family unit, I'm going to insist that you first, define more clearly both "family unit" and "family values" so I don't have to assume their definitions. These, too, are very relative to one's culture. Second, provide some clear evidence or at least ask me some specific questions, as how disease has affected global cultures, past and present, is a topic I've put a bit of study into.

[rccar328]

Christianity is no more valid than either of these fates to me, and therefore just as irrelevant.

 

Well, Skin, I could waste hours debating you on religion, but I think, "Why bother debating topics of morals provided by a supernatural being with someone who doesn't (and won't) believe in any supernatural being in the first place?" The word pointless comes to mind.

 

Here's the Reader's Digest very extremely condensed version: I agree with some of what you said, I disagree with most of it, and I find it pointless to debate morals with a moral relativist. These are my views, and I'm stickin to them.

 

And I'm not blaming the diseases themselves on the breakdown of the family unit, I'm blaming the spread of those diseases on the abandonment of moral values. I know that many STDs were present in history, and they were mainly spread through prostitution (a deviation from traditional moral values!).

 

Woo! I can murder, adulter, rape, pillage, torture, bully, and biggot as much as I want, as long as I accept the redemption and the acknowledgement of Christ as the only son of god. After all, Christ wipes all my sins at death.

 

The idea that you could take advantage of God in this way is both arrogant and ignorant. If you accept the Gift of Salvation through Christ and truly believe that He is Lord, then you will not just acknowledge Him as Lord, but will live according to the morals set forth in the Bible.

 

So your saying that as long as the gay wo/man is Christian, they can be redeemed, or are you not? One can't change what the heart desires after all. For the sake of debate, lets say I was gay and I was also a devout Christian with a fellow gay Christian. Now would we be condemned because we feel lust for the same sex, even though we're devout Christians?

 

Read Romans chapter 1 & what it says about God's views on homosexuality. Once again, if you truly believe in God, you will follow His laws & live according to the morals set out in the Bible.

[Ray Jones]

Originally posted by rccar328

And I'm not blaming the diseases themselves on the breakdown of the family unit, I'm blaming the spread of those diseases on the abandonment of moral values. I know that many STDs were present in history, and they were mainly spread through prostitution (a deviation from traditional moral values!).

 

there are ways of protection against such diseases. in fact i think if society or church wouldnt have been so prude all the time and would have talked openly about the topic sex and the issues of having sex, those diseases wouldnt be of such matter. even nowadays there are still people having NO IDEA how to deal with sexuality, which i find sad. i am no the one proclaiming "have sex all the time and do it with everyone..", but in my opinion there is nothing to say against sex before marriage, especially because i am not a friend of marriage. marriage means nothing, it is no guaranty for a "successful" together of two (or more) people. also marriage is a religous institution and therefore not an option for me.

another thing i wanted to point out is that sex seems not to be the problem. stereotypes and lack of education are the main problem here.

[rccar328]

there are ways of protection against such diseases.

 

Yes, there are. However, there is no 100% sure way EXCEPT ABSTAINING FROM SEX UNTIL MARRIAGE!

 

but in my opinion there is nothing to say against sex before marriage, especially because i am not a friend of marriage. marriage means nothing, it is no guaranty for a "successful" together of two (or more) people. also marriage is a religous institution and therefore not an option for me.

 

The reason that marriage means nothing to you is because the institution of marriage has been so misused by people who marry for the wrong reasons or would rather take the easy way out by divorcing than to stick to their original vows (plus your outright rejection of marriage due to its religious nature).

 

another thing i wanted to point out is that sex seems not to be the problem. stereotypes and lack of education are the main problem here.

 

I agree, but not in the way that you think. The problem is the stereotype that using condoms and/or contraceptive pills constitute "safe sex." The problem is the lack of education that the only safe sex is no sex at all!

 

Sex should be reserved for marriage. Once a person who has never had sex is committed to a person who has never had sex, they can have sex secure in the knowledge that they are not going to get some sort of debilitating, or even deadly disease.

[Ray Jones]

Originally posted by rccar328

Yes, there are. However, there is no 100% sure way EXCEPT ABSTAINING FROM SEX UNTIL MARRIAGE!

 

you seem to forget that sexual deseases are not only tranferable through sex.. someone could infect himself due to low hygienical standards on toilets for instance ..

 

also sexual deseases are not caused by sex. they mainly caused by bad hygiene and such. aids for instance has basicly nothing to do with sex, but can be transfered through sex.

 

also if one person has permanent partner for years, then it should be not a problem if they have sex without marriage.

 

 

The reason that marriage means nothing to you is because the institution of marriage has been so misused by people who marry for the wrong reasons or would rather take the easy way out by divorcing than to stick to their original vows (plus your outright rejection of marriage due to its religious nature).

 

the reason why marriage means nothing to me is that i can do the same things in a "relationship" i could do in a "perfect" marriage, but with out being married. love and a good relationship, children, family.. all that is possible without being married.

 

I agree, but not in the way that you think. The problem is the stereotype that using condoms and/or contraceptive pills constitute "safe sex." The problem is the lack of education that the only safe sex is no sex at all!

 

that would also go for marriage. but as i stated before, children are not only allowed to married people. also i already stated my thoughts to sex and deseases. i could add now that so called sexual deseases could be of matter in marriages to.

 

Sex should be reserved for marriage. Once a person who has never had sex is committed to a person who has never had sex, they can have sex secure in the knowledge that they are not going to get some sort of debilitating, or even deadly disease.

 

no, i clearly deny the truth of what you've said. imagine two people marry and one of them has aids, what he/she mustnt have got infected with through sexual actions, wouldnt it be some kind of deadly game to have unsafe sex then?

[rccar328]

you seem to forget that sexual deseases are not only tranferable through sex.. someone could infect himself due to low hygienical standards on toilets for instance ..

 

Agreed. However, these diseases are mainly transfered by sexual contact, therefore the name, sexually transmitted diseases.

 

also sexual deseases are not caused by sex. they mainly caused by bad hygiene and such. aids for instance has basicly nothing to do with sex, but can be transfered through sex.

 

I never said that they were caused by sex. And yeah, I am assuming a certain hygenic standard on the part of the person who wishes to avoid the disease.

 

also if one person has permanent partner for years, then it should be not a problem if they have sex without marriage.

 

Fine. Abstain until marriage/partnership/civil union. Whatever. I will default to marriage every time, though, because "permanent partnership" without marriage is sin (and yes, I know that you don't agree).

 

the reason why marriage means nothing to me is that i can do the same things in a "relationship" i could do in a "perfect" marriage, but with out being married. love and a good relationship, children, family.. all that is possible without being married.

 

True, but once again, it's a sin.

 

no, i clearly deny the truth of what you've said. imagine two people marry and one of them has aids, what he/she mustnt have got infected with through sexual actions, wouldnt it be some kind of deadly game to have unsafe sex then?

 

Yes, it would. And the proliferation of AIDS in our society has made more than just sex dangerous. It is possible to get AIDS through a simple blood transfusion; that which could save your life could now potentially kill you.

 

I'll have to agree with you - there is no way to be 100% sure that you won't contract an STD. However, the point I was trying to make (which you seem to have ignored entirely) was that when it comes to transferrence of these diseases, abstinence is, by far, the best preventative measure, and the only 100% guarantee that you won't contract an STD through sex/sexual contact. And when you do decide to get married/partnered/civil unioned, get a blood test (they're already required for marriage licences) & don't fool around.

[Ray Jones]

Originally posted by rccar328

Fine. Abstain until marriage/partnership/civil union. Whatever. I will default to marriage every time, though, because "permanent partnership" without marriage is sin (and yes, I know that you don't agree).

 

hehehe. oookaay.

 

(i dont care to sin because i only would sin from your point of view. that doesnt imply i "sin" from my point of view, because i may define what you call "sin" in a different way. and i wouldnt care if you'd like to "stay away" from sex until marriage because you dont want to sin.

also you seem to agree with my point that marriage is not necessary for a good relationship. it "only" would be a sin because you believe it. i'm fine with it. not really a need to disagree. )

 

Yes, it would. And the proliferation of AIDS in our society has made more than just sex dangerous. It is possible to get AIDS through a simple blood transfusion; that which could save your life could now potentially kill you.

 

 

I'll have to agree with you - there is no way to be 100% sure that you won't contract an STD. However, the point I was trying to make (which you seem to have ignored entirely) was that when it comes to transferrence of these diseases, abstinence is, by far, the best preventative measure, and the only 100% guarantee that you won't contract an STD through sex/sexual contact. And when you do decide to get married/partnered/civil unioned, get a blood test (they're already required for marriage licences) & don't fool around.

 

safety first is one of THE basic "human" instincts, if not to say "instinct of life", i agree, anyways.

[rccar328]

also you seem to agree with my point that marriage is not necessary for a good relationship. it "only" would be a sin because you believe it. i'm fine with it. not really a need to disagree.

 

A good relationship...no, marriage is not required.

 

A right relationship, however, means marriage.

It's not my view of sin that I'm talking about here, it's the Bible's (just a clarifying point).

 

 

i dont care to sin because i only would sin from your point of view. that doesnt imply i "sin" from my point of view, because i may define what you call "sin" in a different way. and i wouldnt care if you'd like to "stay away" from sex until marriage because you dont want to sin.

 

This takes me back to one of my earlier arguments that moral relativism doesn't work.

 

If each individual is left to define on their own what constitutes a sin (and the rest of us can't judge them for their views), then anything goes. If a guy can marry a guy because it's not a sin in either of their views, why can't another guy have five wives? If he doesn't consider it a sin, who are we to judge?

If someone commits murder, should we be allowed to put them in jail? What if murder isn't a sin from their point of view? Who are we to judge & impose our morality on them?

 

This is the danger of moral relativism, and this is where our society is continually moving.

[Ray Jones]

Originally posted by rccar328

A good relationship...no, marriage is not required.

 

A right relationship, however, means marriage.

It's not my view of sin that I'm talking about here, it's the Bible's (just a clarifying point).

..

This takes me back to one of my earlier arguments that moral relativism doesn't work.

 

If each individual is left to define on their own what constitutes a sin (and the rest of us can't judge them for their views), then anything goes. If a guy can marry a guy because it's not a sin in either of their views, why can't another guy have five wives?

 

you point here: the bible says "no".

my point here: it's possible, so what? it' s the entire history of mankind that tells us the "no"s.

 

i accept that you personally want to rely your moral laws on the bible, but i will rely mine on humanity.

 

If he doesn't consider it a sin, who are we to judge?

If someone commits murder, should we be allowed to put them in jail? What if murder isn't a sin from their point of view? Who are we to judge & impose our morality on them?

 

again, the bible is not the only source that holds up a certain level of morality. if you think that without the bible there would be no morality, then fine, but i dont think so, also i would ask how other, older large cultures could exist then without biblic moral. religion in general is no guaranty for moral, but it is a way to teach/ express the thought of morality, which each individual will interprete in a different way, though.

[rccar328]

I'm not saying that the Bible is the only moral standard - I'm saying that I hold it as the only true moral standard.

 

The problem is not just an increasing rejection of the Bible. It's an increasing rejection of moral standards. To say that there is some kind of moral line that humanity simply will not cross is a fallacy.

 

If humanity could properly maintain a moral standard, we wouldn't have the problems with rape, thieft, murder, drugs, prostitution, cussing, and alchoholism that we do have.

 

The problem is that with the absence of a religion with clearly defined moral values (or a clearly defined secular moral code), there is no clearly defined moral line beyond which we dare not cross. It is an open playing field, and eventually anything goes.

 

And even then, in the case of a secular moral code, there is no higher power backing it up, and it will eventually fall apart as humanity gives in to its 'baser instincts.'

[Ray Jones]

i actually "believe" that (for me) it is not important what happens to mankind. it's only important what happens to life. i also think we as species have only one "task" .. to survive. we may be considered a special form of life but there are other forms of life we cannot mess with. it all only depends on what ability is observed. and if mankind dies out this must not mean life "dies out". it will spread at any possibility, anyways. and we are just another attempt of life to survive. thats all.

 

and how do you know that "god" didnt created "humans" somewhere else too? or will just recreate humans? or something else?

[rccar328]

and how do you know that "god" didnt created "humans" somewhere else too? or will just recreate humans? or something else?

 

 

 

 

 

BECAUSE THAT'S NOT IN THE BIBLE!!!

IT'S CALLED FAITH, AND IT MEANS THAT I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE, BUT I BELIEVE IT'S TRUE!!!!!

 

 

For the 500th time...

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by rccar328

This is the danger of moral relativism, and this is where our society is continually moving.

 

You're still not getting it... morality is relative, whether you like it or not.

 

Morality is relative to culture, government, religion and family traditions. Biblical or judeo-christian morals aren't the end all be all of ethics and morality in the world. In fact, there are many who could effectively argue that moral sets and ethics of other social groups are better.

 

Fundamentalist christians get wrapped up in the inerrancy of the bible, but the bible has nothing to support it but itself. As a book of human mythology, it contains much truth and can be learned from. But as a book of "facts" it fails. To live one's life as if that is the only truth and if the bible doens't mention something it doesn't exist is ignorant in every definition of the word.

[rccar328]

Morality is relative to culture, government, religion and family traditions.

But that's not the moral relativism that I'm talking about. I'm talking about morality that is relative to the individual, which is where our society is moving. When we get to that point, all bets are off.

[Ray Jones]

rccar:

 

first of all, no need to get angry. i am not trying to prove your faith wrong nor i do i try to force towards anything. it is more that I would like to understand what your thoughts concerning certain questions are or in other words i try to understand your way of thinking. i am not asking "HOW CAN YOU THINK THAT?", i more ask "WHAT are you thinking?"

if you stick to the bible and base your way of thinking to it, ok. but you shouldnt refuse to talk about WHAT you are thinking. especially if there is nothing to read about in the bible, because how am i supposed to know?

 

Originally posted by rccar328

BECAUSE THAT'S NOT IN THE BIBLE!!!

 

so. here it comes, another question.

there are many things in our world, which are not mentioned in the bible: cars, planes, weapons like guns and grenades, computers, condoms, radios, telephones, cameras, electricity, spaceshuttles, mars probes .. and much more.

nothing of that is in the bible. but you wont deny it's existence, will you?

so, if there is so much in our world, that is not mentioned in the bible, then where do you draw the line between "in the bible and existing", "not in the bible but existing" and "not in the bible and not (cannot be) existent"? (i wont push it to "in the bible and not (cannot be) existent", because that would go against your faith, anyways.. )

 

or should something be ignored or considered sin, because there is nothing to find about it in the bible? obviously not, as follows.

for instance, how do you bring the bible and the internet together/ into one context?

there must be some way, since you believe in the bible (to say it so) and you are using the internet (via computer, using eletricity, a phoneline or cable, software and all that).

but none of that is to find in the bible.. so how do you deal with it? and what are you base your thoughts on?

 

IT'S CALLED FAITH, AND IT MEANS THAT I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE, BUT I BELIEVE IT'S TRUE!!!!!

 

again, this is not a matter of what you believe or what your faith is. also i do not claim what i say is true. how could i?

actually my point is another: what to believe if there is nothing to find about it in my faith?

 

For the 500th time...

 

patience is not a sin. be patient with me, because i am patient with you. also i understand your anger, but see, anger is nothing that solves problems nor it would keep me from asking.

 

if you want to talk about something, talk about it, if not, then not. again, for me it is not about your beliefs against mine. it is about your beliefs and mine.

[ET Warrior]

You know christians used to think it was a sin to be left-handed. If you were left handed they would tie your left hand behind your back and MAKE you right handed. Why? You were born that way, why should you change just because it's different.

 

EXACT same thing with homosexuals. Examine yourself, look deep inside, and tell me that you could CHOOSE to be gay if you wanted. that it wouldn't bother you to have sex with a man. You can't say that can you, because you are NOT gay. just like they ARE gay. Gay men can't just decide, "well shoot, I'm a sinner, and I better stop my evil, I LOVE WOMEN!" Homosexuality isn't accepted because it's different, just as left-handed people weren't accepted. No difference.

 

And I'm fairly certain the left-handed = evil argument had backing by the bible..something about how the left hand was related to Satan...I don't want to make any attempt to look it up, but you might if you're bored.

[rccar328]

first of all, no need to get angry. i am not trying to prove your faith wrong nor i do i try to force towards anything. it is more that I would like to understand what your thoughts concerning certain questions are or in other words i try to understand your way of thinking.

 

I apologize, and thank you for your honest questioning. I've run into so many people whose primary goal is to tear down my arguments that honest questioning is getting hard to recognize.

 

so, if there is so much in our world, that is not mentioned in the bible, then where do you draw the line between "in the bible and existing", "not in the bible but existing" and "not in the bible and not (cannot be) existent"?

 

Well, as far as life (or intelligent life) on other planets, it is possible that it exists, that God created other people on other planets. Personally, I do not believe that it exists, but it is possible that it was not mentioned in the Bible because the people of the time had no concept of other planets - the Earth was the center of the universe, the sun revolved around the Earth, etc. It wasn't until much later that scientists discovered the nature of our solar system as we now know it (planets revolving around the sun), and the concept of the existence of other planets.

 

The same applies to "cars, planes, weapons like guns and grenades, computers, condoms, radios, telephones, cameras, electricity, spaceshuttles, mars probes .. and much more."

 

The last book of the Bible was written between 90 & 96 AD, and at that time, it would have been counterproductive to try to teach the people by talking about cars or telephones, simply because the people had no concept of what those things were. We can apply the teachings of the Bible to our lives, though, because we can look back and see how they lived, and thus understand the moral teachings of Jesus, who mainly taught through parables.

 

for instance, how do you bring the bible and the internet together/ into one context? there must be some way, since you believe in the bible (to say it so) and you are using the internet (via computer, using eletricity, a phoneline or cable, software and all that).

but none of that is to find in the bible.. so how do you deal with it? and what are you base your thoughts on?

 

Once again, it has to do with how the people of the time were living. They did not know about electricity, or computers, or telephones, and it would have been impossible for them to understand communicating via the internet because they had no understanding of all of these other things. It would have been counterproductive to bring it up at the time because it just would have confused the people.

 

patience is not a sin. be patient with me, because i am patient with you. also i understand your anger, but see, anger is nothing that solves problems nor it would keep me from asking.

 

Again, I apologize. I grew impatient because I misunderstood the nature of your questioning.