Evidence for God from Science

cslewislover wrote:I don't know. Obviously, our culture has let things go slowly. Maybe we should bring back stoning for ALL the offenses .

The bright side of this is that the faster things get worse, the faster the light at the end of the tunnel is revealed. That's not to say I hope to speed it up, I just refrain from hindering what we already know will happen. Instead of trying to slow the degredation of <insert a law of God here>, let's go and point people to Christ by our characters of acceptance rather than point to our lines of division. Let Christ draw unto Him...let Him do the changing of hearts, minds, and actions.
.
.

BavarianWheels wrote:

cslewislover wrote:I don't know. Obviously, our culture has let things go slowly. Maybe we should bring back stoning for ALL the offenses .

The bright side of this is that the faster things get worse, the faster the light at the end of the tunnel is revealed. That's not to say I hope to speed it up, I just refrain from hindering what we already know will happen. Instead of trying to slow the degredation of <insert a law of God here>, let's go and point people to Christ by our characters of acceptance rather than point to our lines of division. Let Christ draw unto Him...let Him do the changing of hearts, minds, and actions.
.
.

I totally agree with that. I'd still like to know, though, and I'm not being argumentative or negative, some more ideas on how we can do that, besides what we already do. I know we are often into ourselves and not outward enough, but I'd like to hear more.

cslewislover wrote:I totally agree with that. I'd still like to know, though, and I'm not being argumentative or negative, some more ideas on how we can do that, besides what we already do. I know we are often into ourselves and not outward enough, but I'd like to hear more.

Not to get off topic too much, but I simply believe we try too hard to change those we aim to bring into salvation. There's no change needed for salvation other than a change of attitude toward Christ. Sanctification, or the changing of the life, comes at God's direction and in His time. Our job as lay Christians is to allow Christ to be revealed through us...

I will go out on a limb and predict: Not one person will be brought to Christ as a result of Prop. 8 being voted in and thus "saving marriage."

We major on the minors and minor on the majors...as I heard it once said (or did I read it...?)
.
.

BavarianWheels wrote:to vote YES on Prop. 8 = a vote for the state legislating your religious morals.
.

Of course... Why not vote for state legislating religious morals??? Stealing, murder, rape, destroying the environment, are we just going to stand there and let America go down the tubes? Why vote at all then?

BavarianWheels wrote:

zoegirl wrote:but sexual pervesion being declared illegal would help keep society in check.

It would?? I must assume you're living in a fantasy world...or at least keeping yourself from seeing the world as it is.

Wow, I wonder why it is that we outlaw rape, child abuse, child prnography if outlawing sexual pervesion doesn't keep society in check? While it may be hard to keep these in check (given the rampant trade in computer porn), it would be ludicrous to NOt outlaw them simply because we are worried about the logistics of the law.

zoegirl wrote:If we mess with the definition of marriage, at what point would we stop? Why isn't three people in love with each other and committed to each not marriage? At what point do we worry about the social implications?

God never defined "marriage"...the word is what we use to describe it.

Umm....why do you think God never defined marriage?!?!?! From Genesis to Christ, it was clear what the mandate was.

On another hand, Christian morals shouldn't be left to the public school system. If you want your children to learn Christian values, I suggest you put some money into your local Christian school system

I never suggested that we lean upon the school system....and I do work at a CHristian school. But I find this argument absurd as well. Again, simply because these are Christian values does not negate their value in society. Why would it? It is also a value seen in other religions. We legislate morality all the time and most of it is based upon Christian values, whether or not society wants to see it that way.

and allow the "world" to define marriage as they please.

Ahhh, so let's allow ALL civil unions between Polygamists, threesomes; quartets; hey a whole conglomerate of people who LOVE each other and want to be committed to each other...After all we shouldn't let the state control morality!!

Bottomline here is...the responsibility of teaching our children Christian morals starts and ends within the family setting.

I don't know why you are including this as an argument. I have neither stated the opposite nor do I suport the opposite. Somehow you think I believe that it isn't our responsibility?!!?!? Of course it begins with the family first. But that doesn't mean that we cannot define marriage. Plain and simple....why not? It is the function of our govenrment to decide the law.

What about the other kids in society with no family? Be a big brother or a big sister...there are plenty of programs out for the concerned to get involved and make a difference.

Ummmm Why in the WORLD are you including this?!?!? Of course there are families without a mother or a father. It's sad, it's unfortunate....it's also not what SHOULD be. It's a result of the fallen world. Peopl get divorced, people die. But in the end, it's what we ACCEPT as the was it should be that's important. In a world not corrupted by sin, there would not be death and there would not be rejection and divorce. ASk any child and they would completely understand that death and divorce STINK. It shouldn't happen. But this shouldn't define our concept of marriage.

Using your logic, we should just be resigned and accept murder....after all it happens, right? Goodness, we better not make the murderer feel bad.



And absolutely there should be programs like big brother or sister.

cslewislover wrote:I don't think that by allowing gays to marry that the world will go "into a tailspin of sexual perversion." A lot of the world is already there, lol. I remember this painful argument on another board not all that long ago.

Then there's no real reason to legislate it. It's inevitable.

Wow, I wonder if this logic is how Sodom and Gomorrah began it's descent?

By this logic, it's inevitable that people will be murdered....ergo let's stop legislating murder

The issue is not the inevitability of an act, but whether the act is immoral

cslewislover wrote:but I don't think it should be marriage as defined in the bible,

What if we call it a union and they get everything a "marriage" allows? If Prop. 8 was worded as a "union" instead...?

[/quote][/quote]

Where will you draw the line? Suppose 8 women and 8 men all love each other.....four men and one woman? A woman and a dog? Why not? Why should you be so specist?

Gman wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote:to vote YES on Prop. 8 = a vote for the state legislating your religious morals.
.

Of course... Why not vote for state legislating religious morals??? Stealing, murder, rape, destroying the environment, are we just going to stand there and let America go down the tubes? Why vote at all then?

You're gonna equate "marriage" to stealing, murder...? Do you not understand the difference between religious laws and secular laws? *Our* society in the U.S. is mostly "religious" and this Prop. 8, while I'm sure it will pass with a 'yes', is purely based on religious beliefs. Stealing, murder...and the like are not based purely on religious law, but on basic human understanding of what is needed for a society to function. Keeping homosexuals from being in the union of "marriage" does nothing of the sort. It will not remove homosexuals from society as "you" conservatives would like. I don't like homosexuality, but I understand it's an infection sin EXACTLY like the sin in me...simply manifested differently.

I'm against legislation of religious morals...marriage of homosexuals falls within this realm.
.
.

zoegirl wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote:

zoegirl wrote:but sexual pervesion being declared illegal would help keep society in check.

It would?? I must assume you're living in a fantasy world...or at least keeping yourself from seeing the world as it is.

Wow, I wonder why it is that we outlaw rape, child abuse, child prnography if outlawing sexual pervesion doesn't keep society in check? While it may be hard to keep these in check (given the rampant trade in computer porn), it would be ludicrous to NOt outlaw them simply because we are worried about the logistics of the law.

It's quite laughable that you want to equate marriage of homosexuals to rape, child abuse...while as a Christian I do hold homosexuality as a sexual perversion, it is NOT at the same level as rape, child abuse, child pornography (from a secular p.o.v.). Sodomy is also a sexual perversion...are you gonna legislate it out of "healthy" hetero relationships? Who will police it? Fornication is also a sexual perversion...let's add this to Prop. 8 and end all the sexual contact outside of a marriage relationship. Would you vote for these? Homosexuals are consenting adults...there is no abuse. No one is going to force another to marry into a homosexual relationship.

zoegirl wrote:If we mess with the definition of marriage, at what point would we stop? Why isn't three people in love with each other and committed to each not marriage? At what point do we worry about the social implications?

BavarianWheels wrote: God never defined "marriage"...the word is what we use to describe it.

zoegirl wrote:Umm....why do you think God never defined marriage?!?!?! From Genesis to Christ, it was clear what the mandate was.

If you're gonna promote homosexual marriage as a sexual perversion...at which sexual perversion do YOU draw the line? I don't see any banners you're waving for the rest of them that run rampant in hetero society.

zoegirl wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote:On another hand, Christian morals shouldn't be left to the public school system. If you want your children to learn Christian values, I suggest you put some money into your local Christian school system

I never suggested that we lean upon the school system....and I do work at a CHristian school. But I find this argument absurd as well. Again, simply because these are Christian values does not negate their value in society. Why would it? It is also a value seen in other religions. We legislate morality all the time and most of it is based upon Christian values, whether or not society wants to see it that way.

Absurd? Have you not seen the television commercials promoting a 'yes' vote on Prop. 8?

zoegirl wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote:and allow the "world" to define marriage as they please.

Ahhh, so let's allow ALL civil unions between Polygamists, threesomes; quartets; hey a whole conglomerate of people who LOVE each other and want to be committed to each other...After all we shouldn't let the state control morality!!

Polygamy, threesomes, quartets...and more were a part of normal life in the OT...not that it's ok...but it was. Anyone that wants to have more than one wife, I say, "More power to you, bro!" Most can barely handle one. Shall we legislate dating too?

zoegirl wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote:Bottomline here is...the responsibility of teaching our children Christian morals starts and ends within the family setting.

I don't know why you are including this as an argument. I have neither stated the opposite nor do I suport the opposite. Somehow you think I believe that it isn't our responsibility?!!?!? Of course it begins with the family first. But that doesn't mean that we cannot define marriage. Plain and simple....why not? It is the function of our govenrment to decide the law.

Is it the government's function to also legislate religious morality? Is this a theocracy or a democracy? If the vote goes 'yes'...then the people have spoken. I'm just saying it's wrong to legislate religious morals on society...then the problem comes...who's religion do we promote?

zoegirl wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote:What about the other kids in society with no family? Be a big brother or a big sister...there are plenty of programs out for the concerned to get involved and make a difference.

Ummmm Why in the WORLD are you including this?!?!? Of course there are families without a mother or a father. It's sad, it's unfortunate....it's also not what SHOULD be. It's a result of the fallen world. Peopl get divorced, people die. But in the end, it's what we ACCEPT as the was it should be that's important. In a world not corrupted by sin, there would not be death and there would not be rejection and divorce. ASk any child and they would completely understand that death and divorce STINK. It shouldn't happen. But this shouldn't define our concept of marriage.

Using your logic, we should just be resigned and accept murder....after all it happens, right? Goodness, we better not make the murderer feel bad.

Again...equating murder to marriage...

zoegirl wrote:And absolutely there should be programs like big brother or sister.

Good...I agree.

zoegirl wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote:

cslewislover wrote:I don't think that by allowing gays to marry that the world will go "into a tailspin of sexual perversion." A lot of the world is already there, lol. I remember this painful argument on another board not all that long ago.

Then there's no real reason to legislate it. It's inevitable.

Wow, I wonder if this logic is how Sodom and Gomorrah began it's descent?

By this logic, it's inevitable that people will be murdered....ergo let's stop legislating murder

The issue is not the inevitability of an act, but whether the act is immoral

Once again...why do you equate marriage with murder? Sodom and Gomorrah began it's decent when sin entered the world. Blame sin, don't blame the law or lack thereof.

zoegirl wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote:

cslewislover wrote:but I don't think it should be marriage as defined in the bible,

What if we call it a union and they get everything a "marriage" allows? If Prop. 8 was worded as a "union" instead...?

Where will you draw the line? Suppose 8 women and 8 men all love each other.....four men and one woman? A woman and a dog? Why not? Why should you be so specist?

I'm not sure you realize this, but the line is already drawn. Do you think underscoring it in legislating it makes our life better? Once again, the "marriage" of two consenting homosexuals is not the same as murder, rape, stealing, child porn, child abuse, ...and the rest of what society "needs" to function. These sins and/or laws are in place and function because both parties are not consenting. They exist to allow EVERYONE their unalienable rights. Marriage, while not condoned Biblically between homosexuals, does not affect YOU...other than cause a jump in pressure on your religious moral barometer.

Homosexuals are able to function as Christians just the same as you and I. Their sex within the relationship maybe impure and an abomination in God's sight, but let's not pretend that every sexual encounter between a heterosexual couple is free of sexual perversion...I would go so far as to say, not every sexual encounter between heterosexual Christian couples is free of sexual perversion.

Would you?
.
.

Banning homosexuality is very very different from refraining from recognising same-sex unions.

I would vote AGAINST a ban on homosexuality.
I would vote AGAINST states recognising same sex unions.

There is a big difference!

Harry12345 wrote:Banning homosexuality is very very different from refraining from recognising same-sex unions.

I would vote AGAINST a ban on homosexuality.
I would vote AGAINST states recognising same sex unions.

There is a big difference!

So you'd vote for their right to be homosexual and at the same time vote against them being able to "marry"?

Slightly paradoxical isn't it?
.
.

BavarianWheels wrote:

Gman wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote:to vote YES on Prop. 8 = a vote for the state legislating your religious morals.
.

Of course... Why not vote for state legislating religious morals??? Stealing, murder, rape, destroying the environment, are we just going to stand there and let America go down the tubes? Why vote at all then?

You're gonna equate "marriage" to stealing, murder...? Do you not understand the difference between religious laws and secular laws? *Our* society in the U.S. is mostly "religious" and this Prop. 8, while I'm sure it will pass with a 'yes', is purely based on religious beliefs. Stealing, murder...and the like are not based purely on religious law, but on basic human understanding of what is needed for a society to function.

And many of these ARE understood from a religious standpoint. As an example, look how euthanasia has changed over the years once human life has been devalued. Once you remove the religious aspect, the idea of the sanctity of life, then you start sliding down a dangerous slope.

Keeping homosexuals from being in the union of "marriage" does nothing of the sort. It will not remove homosexuals from society as "you" conservatives would like.

I wish you wouldn't place words in my mouth. I NEVER said that defining marriage WOULD remove them from society.

And yes, I do believe that it would eventuially impair the functioning of society.

I don't like homosexuality, but I understand it's an infection sin EXACTLY like the sin in me...simply manifested differently.

ANd I would agree. I have never said otherwise. But the question then becomes whether we CONDONE a sinful act.

I'm against legislation of religious morals...marriage of homosexuals falls within this realm.
.
.

Of course I understand the difference; however, at the heart of it, I see marraige as just as important to the health of the society. If you think all laws are purely secular then you are very shortsighted.

YOu haven't yey answered my questions about where you would draw the line. What if 8 people come to you wanting to be married. Would you allow it? What about the children of such a union. HOw wou;d you draft the custody laws if they divorce?

BavarianWheels wrote:You're gonna equate "marriage" to stealing, murder...? Do you not understand the difference between religious laws and secular laws?

What does this have to do with anything??? Answer my question... Why are you voting???

BavarianWheels wrote:*Our* society in the U.S. is mostly "religious" and this Prop. 8, while I'm sure it will pass with a 'yes', is purely based on religious beliefs. Stealing, murder...and the like are not based purely on religious law, but on basic human understanding of what is needed for a society to function.

You don't think that laws against killing, child pornography, polygamy and polyandry are based on religious beliefs?

BavarianWheels wrote:Keeping homosexuals from being in the union of "marriage" does nothing of the sort. It will not remove homosexuals from society as "you" conservatives would like. I don't like homosexuality, but I understand it's an infection sin EXACTLY like the sin in me...simply manifested differently.

What on earth are you talking about?? Who is talking about removing homosexuals from society? We are only talking about RIGHTS here not extermination...

BavarianWheels wrote:I'm against legislation of religious morals...marriage of homosexuals falls within this realm.
.
.

Then you might as well remove all the religious laws from society and not vote...

zoegirl wrote:And many of these ARE understood from a religious standpoint. As an example, look how euthanasia has changed over the years once human life has been devalued. Once you remove the religious aspect, the idea of the sanctity of life, then you start sliding down a dangerous slope.

Once again, I think you're trying to equate something that is intrisically a good thing for society *apart* from it being religious. The sanctity of life remains in a society that regards it as important...hence laws against murder...

zoegirl wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote:Keeping homosexuals from being in the union of "marriage" does nothing of the sort. It will not remove homosexuals from society as "you" conservatives would like.

I wish you wouldn't place words in my mouth. I NEVER said that defining marriage WOULD remove them from society.

And yes, I do believe that it would eventuially impair the functioning of society.

No...that's just the hope, however forgive me, I didn't mean you specifically. I meant conservatives on the whole...Christians that vote hoping this will start to wipe out sin (starting with the homosexuals as this is a thorn in the side of Christianity) as they think the world will come to some utopia by their votes. I have a few working here with me.

zoegirl wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote:I don't like homosexuality, but I understand it's an infection sin EXACTLY like the sin in me...simply manifested differently.

ANd I would agree. I have never said otherwise. But the question then becomes whether we CONDONE a sinful act.

I made a typo. "...it's an infection of sin..."

Should, then, Christians persue a law against fornication outside of marriage? Should there be a Prop. # that makes fornication outside of marriage illegal? If it's not being done, then we as Christians are condoning such a sinful act...no? Do we just pay lipservice to those acts that offend us more... i.e. homosexual marriage?

zoegirl wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote:I'm against legislation of religious morals...marriage of homosexuals falls within this realm.

Of course I understand the difference; however, at the heart of it, I see marraige as just as important to the health of the society. If you think all laws are purely secular then you are very shortsighted.

Are you saying that homosexuals having a legal "marriage" would affect society in such a way as to degrade society even more than it is already? Will a simple law against a piece of paper that says two people are "married" degrade society? Will it create more homosexuals? What exactly will having that paper do to society? Will the "marriage" of homosexuals raising a child create more homosexuals? Hardly anymore than are created in heterosexual marriages...I would gather quite a bit less than are created in a hetero-marriage! (I heard / read this somewhere and just laughed because it is sooo true!)

I don't think laws *are* purely secular...I think laws *SHOULD* be purely secular when legislated by a non-theocratic State. There are laws that may fall into the "religious / secular" area such as murder, rape, child abuse / pornography...but these laws are in place and should be in place because the act of each of these involves an unwilling victim.

zoegirl wrote:YOu haven't yey answered my questions about where you would draw the line. What if 8 people come to you wanting to be married. Would you allow it? What about the children of such a union. HOw wou;d you draft the custody laws if they divorce?

I couldn't marry anyone. I have no authority to do so. As a Christian of certain beliefs, I would have to say 'no' had I the authority. However, I wouldn't hinder their right to marry each other as long as all parties were in agreement. What about the children? They'd have to find and pay for their own lawyers and hash it out as any other conventional marriage. What would be the difference you see? Each "couple" seeking to divorce would be treated as a separate "marriage". Nothing too difficult about it.
.
.

Gman wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote:You're gonna equate "marriage" to stealing, murder...? Do you not understand the difference between religious laws and secular laws?

What does this have to do with anything??? Answer my question... Why are you voting???

I explained this above to zoegirl.

Why am I voting? Am I not giving my opinion on the matter? Would this not serve as the answer to why?

Gman wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote:*Our* society in the U.S. is mostly "religious" and this Prop. 8, while I'm sure it will pass with a 'yes', is purely based on religious beliefs. Stealing, murder...and the like are not based purely on religious law, but on basic human understanding of what is needed for a society to function.

You don't think that laws against killing, child pornography, polygamy and polyandry are based on religious beliefs?

There is a basis...no doubt...however these are laws against (as I mentioned above to zoegirl) victimization in these acts. Polyandry is not bad on society when the individuals partaking in it are consentual adults.

Gman wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote:Keeping homosexuals from being in the union of "marriage" does nothing of the sort. It will not remove homosexuals from society as "you" conservatives would like. I don't like homosexuality, but I understand it's an infection sin EXACTLY like the sin in me...simply manifested differently.

What on earth are you talking about?? Who is talking about removing homosexuals from society? We are only talking about RIGHTS here not extermination...

Have you ever attended a "worship" service in a Christian church where the pulpit is used to promote Christian values on society, i.e. swaying the worshiper's votes? They try and convince you that voting a certain way will "help" Christianity and the Will of God and that it's "right". I've seen it...heard it. It's what happens, but maybe not to you. "Marriage" is just a piece of paper with certain rights that come with it from a society...nothing else. A Christian was never told of God to marry in a church with a minister and marry by the State at city hall...were we?

Gman wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote:I'm against legislation of religious morals...marriage of homosexuals falls within this realm.

Then you might as well remove all the religious laws from society and not vote...

I would be all for it! The keeping of religious law should be of one's own conscience...not societies whims.
.
.

BavarianWheels wrote:

Harry12345 wrote:Banning homosexuality is very very different from refraining from recognising same-sex unions.

I would vote AGAINST a ban on homosexuality.
I would vote AGAINST states recognising same sex unions.

There is a big difference!

So you'd vote for their right to be homosexual and at the same time vote against them being able to "marry"?

Slightly paradoxical isn't it?
.
.

Nope.
Homosexuality being legal = homosexuals doing as they please, as per a free society
Same gender marriage being recognised by the state = state granting rights to couples

See the difference? One is being free from state interference. The other is getting specific benefits from the state. The two are at ends!

Harry12345 wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote:

Harry12345 wrote:Banning homosexuality is very very different from refraining from recognising same-sex unions.

I would vote AGAINST a ban on homosexuality.
I would vote AGAINST states recognising same sex unions.

There is a big difference!

So you'd vote for their right to be homosexual and at the same time vote against them being able to "marry"?

Slightly paradoxical isn't it?

Nope.
Homosexuality being legal = homosexuals doing as they please, as per a free society
Same gender marriage being recognised by the state = state granting rights to couples

See the difference? One is being free from state interference. The other is getting specific benefits from the state. The two are at ends!

And how does this affect society?

Why is it the proponents of Prop 8 are using "the children" as the excuse

Why is it proponents of Prop 8 are pushing this through churches?

What will happen if same-sex-couple gain rights from the state?

Is it the dollar you're worried about? If so, how so?
.
.