Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote:William Lane Craig podcast on the Chick-fil-A issue, and gay marriage:http://www.reasonablefaith.org/culture- ... hick-fil-a

He raises some good points that I never really considered. What do you think?

This raised the question in my mind of whether marriage should be legally recognized, or left to churches. The only reason it's a problem is because of the political aspect of marriage, which shouldn't exist in my opinion. To me, marriage should be religious / spiritual / ceremonial / traditional / symbolic; not political. Maybe if this happens Wal-Mart could offer non-religious partnership ceremonies?

Chick Fil-A all the way!

Stygian wrote:This raised the question in my mind of whether marriage should be legally recognized, or left to churches. The only reason it's a problem is because of the political aspect of marriage, which shouldn't exist in my opinion. To me, marriage should be religious / spiritual / ceremonial / traditional / symbolic; not political. Maybe if this happens Wal-Mart could offer non-religious partnership ceremonies?

Hello? are you unconscious or operating on cruise control? Since you don't vote - and won't vote - you'll have absolutely no say in the matter. Go back to sleep. The universe is unfolding as it should.

FL

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

Stygian wrote:This raised the question in my mind of whether marriage should be legally recognized, or left to churches. The only reason it's a problem is because of the political aspect of marriage, which shouldn't exist in my opinion. To me, marriage should be religious / spiritual / ceremonial / traditional / symbolic; not political. Maybe if this happens Wal-Mart could offer non-religious partnership ceremonies?

Hello? are you unconscious or operating on cruise control? Since you don't vote - and won't vote - you'll have absolutely no say in the matter. Go back to sleep. The universe is unfolding as it should.

FL

Where did stygian say he doesn't vote? Or am I just missing something, because that is a good possibility.

Murray wrote:Where did stygian say he doesn't vote? Or am I just missing something, because that is a good possibility.

I said I refuse to vote if neither candidate has anything to offer earlier in this topic. Furstentum Liechtenstein is having trouble accepting my opinion because he's so sure of his own correctness that he shuns me for doing so. As for the 'legal recognition of marriage' I don't see how it's at all applicable to my disbelief in the power of voting. I can fight for things I believe in without voting, since voting has ultimately brought about very little good throughout history. On such a large scale, it is even worse.

By the way, Furstentum, thank you for respecting my views.

ok, well if you agree with traditional marriage vote republican, or if you fiscally liberal but socially conservative find someone to write it. Theres over 100 different parties, i'm sure theres one that fits you. If more people actually had the incentive to vote for a third party the 2 major parties might start to take notice of their polices.

"... since voting has ultimately brought about very little good throughout history. On such a large scale, it is even worse.

So, IF those voting on the side which produced unfavorable results should not have done so, then what about those that SHOULD have voted to prevent the ability for those elected who produced unfavorable results? If there was any POTENTIAL to have prevented unfavorable results by those collectively voting in sufficient numbers, SHOULD THEY NOT HAVE DONE SO - even if there was only a mere chance that those they would have had as a voting alternative would have won or produced better societal results? Again, a non-vote IS essentially a vote for the winning candidate. By not voting, you would have helped put that "undesirable" candidate in office just as much as if you had actually voted for him.

Cannot a very strong case also be made for the following statement?: "NON voting has ultimately brought about very little good throughout history. On such a large scale, it is even worse."

Murray wrote:ok, well if you agree with traditional marriage vote republican, or if you fiscally liberal but socially conservative find someone to write it. Theres over 100 different parties, i'm sure theres one that fits you. If more people actually had the incentive to vote for a third party the 2 major parties might start to take notice of their polices.

I actually agree with the latter statement. I generally side with libertarians, since it's closest to my views,and I find much of what they say to be in agreement with scripture.

And voting Republican doesn't necessarily fix up the traditional marriage ordeal. That party has failed to fix abortion, war, and marriage for quite some time Not that the Democratic party is any better.



Philip, are you REALLY up to starting this all over again? It was bad enough Furstentum has already taken it upon himself to mock me, and continually belittle my statements.

Philip wrote:Cannot a very strong case also be made for the following statement?: "NON voting has ultimately brought about very little good throughout history. On such a large scale, it is even worse."

You could, which is why - since voting for the presidency has made little to no positive difference whatsoever in the integrity of our country - I want to make a difference in ways aside from it. I want to encourage a lack of dependence on the state, which is why I WOULD vote if a candidate would help achieve that. That is my ultimate voting goal. The candidates we've seen recently and throughout American history only wished to exact further control. Voting for one person out of two people I strongly disagree with won't fix anything, nor will it 'suppress the evil' like you say it does, yet fail to prove. Relying on the system (something you also have yet to prove that God approves of) is not helping. By not voting, I am expressing how I don't want to be overtly dependent on government.

For the last time: I have no confidence in either candidate bringing about positive change, so I will not vote. If you don't respect that and think we should continue to vote for the 'lesser evil,' tell me... how has voting for evil been going for you?

Philip wrote:
By not voting, you would have helped put that "undesirable" candidate in office just as much as if you had actually voted for him.

What if the only 2 candidates that could possibly win, are both "undesirable"? Where does that leave you, Mr. Smartypants?

And Stygian, don't worry about Furstentum. He's Canadian. Canadians are jealous of Americans, and always belittle us.

RickD wrote:And Stygian, don't worry about Furstentum. He's Canadian. Canadians are jealous of Americans, and always belittle us.

Let's not be too discriminatory about this

Stygian wrote: I can fight for things I believe in without voting, since voting has ultimately brought about very little good throughout history. On such a large scale, it is even worse.

By the way, Furstentum, thank you for respecting my views.

Well, you're right: democracy is potentially the worst form of government because if an electorate is bent on evil, they will elect evil representatives. Just look at what is happening in the Muslim world since they got free elections.

And, no, I don't respect your position on voting. You are part of the problem.

+ + +

RickD wrote:And Stygian, don't worry about Furstentum. He's Canadian. Canadians are jealous of Americans, and always belittle us.

That may be true of English-speaking Canadians who often compare themselves to Americans. I am not an English-speaking Canadian. I like Americans and would never belittle such a great country that has done so much for the world and for the advancement of Christianity. I think it is sad that individual Americans unwittingly participate in the destruction of their heritage by not participating in the electoral process. Shame on you.

The bigger they are the harder they fall.

FL

What if the only 2 candidates that could possibly win, are both "undesirable"? Where does that leave you, Mr. Smartypants?

It still means that your non vote helped one of them into office. So, nonetheless, whether he was good or bad, your non vote functioned as a vote - for the winner.

Philip wrote:

What if the only 2 candidates that could possibly win, are both "undesirable"? Where does that leave you, Mr. Smartypants?

It still means that your non vote helped one of them into office. So, nonetheless, whether he was good or bad, your non vote functioned as a vote - for the winner.

So, say I vote for a third candidate who has absolutely no chance to win. Is my vote still functioning as a vote for whoever wins?

FL wrote to Stygian:
And, no, I don't respect your position on voting. You are part of the problem.

Stygian, I respect your choice to not vote for either of the two candidates who have a viable chance to be president. I respect your choice, if your choice is lead by your conscience. Because this is something I have struggled with for the last 20-25 years. I also respect one who decides to vote the lesser if two evils, if he is voting his conscience. IMO, as long as I am faced with two candidates who I feel will hurt our country, I am forced to vote for neither. Now, I suppose I could vote for a third candidate, but if I feel that candidate has no chance to win, then I'm basically doing the same as not voting.

. I like Americans and would never belittle such a great country that has done so much for the world and for the advancement of Christianity.

FL, what exactly does that mean? The advancement of Christianity? Sounds like theocracy to me.

RickD wrote:IMO, as long as I am faced with two candidates who I feel will hurt our country, I am forced to vote for neither. Now, I suppose I could vote for a third candidate, but if I feel that candidate has no chance to win, then I'm basically doing the same as not voting.

You may have lame candidates because of a long history of voter apathy. You won't fix the problem by not voting, it will only get worse. If you do nothing, do you really expect things to improve? If your car breaks down, do you wait for it to heal or do you take action and fix it?!

RickD wrote:

FL wrote to Stygian:
I like Americans and would never belittle such a great country that has done so much for the world and for the advancement of Christianity.

FL, what exactly does that mean? The advancement of Christianity? Sounds like theocracy to me.

A theocracy is rule by religion/faith. Iran is a prime example. I think you'll see more & more Muslim states becoming theocracies as democracy takes hold in these nations. Perhaps I should have said, ''America has done more to promote Christianity and Christian values than any other nation in the world.''

Anyway, I'm leaving tomorrow for a one-month vacation in the USA. If I meet a non-voting American, I'll whack him on the back of the head.

FL