Evidence for God from Science

cslewislover wrote:As for the homosexuality issue, I want to get verses posted about it. You would need to show why the Church should somehow cut those out (which, I've heard, but haven't seen for myself, some homosexual churches in fact do!) or explain them away somehow.

There exists an Adventist church in Glendale Ca. that is known for openly accepting homosexuals into their congregation. Now to me that is a good thing in a sense and not so good in another. I don't know how the situation is handled other than knowing they accept them. I do know from friends that have attended as regulars at one time, that there is a section of pews called the "pink" section where the homosexuals sit together. Just a FYI.
I'm not sure, however, if the church condones homosexuality, but I know the Church doesn't.

cslewislover wrote:And before you get too upset and say that I can then judge people, I'm not and won't. For a person who continues to sin while appearing in all other ways to be the Lord's, I would simply say that that is between that person and the Lord. But we are also commanded to teach his word and point out sin, in love, so people know; what they do with that knowledge is between them and the Lord.

I like this.

As I've stated in other threads along this same line, my take is that it is not a sin to BE homosexual, (any more than it is to be heterosexual) but the sin is in ACTING out homosexual behavior in regards to sexual acts. We are all sinners at all times and in the same STATE whether one is hetero or homo. That STATE being sinful. Our STANDING in Christ, whether hetero or homo, is always PERFECT. How do we reconcile a homosexual as such?? As csl mentioned above, WE do all in LOVE. We that point at the homosexual must always remember the old saying, 'Point your finger at me and three are pointing back at you'. (or something like that) We should allow God to work in the lives of the homosexuals in Christ as He sees fit.
.
.

BavarianWheels wrote:We that point at the homosexual must always remember the old saying, 'Point your finger at me and three are pointing back at you'.

Or, «why do you gripe about the speck in your brother's eye while there's a 2 x 4 in yours.» (Matthew 7:3)

BavarianWheels wrote:We should allow God to work in the lives of the homosexuals in Christ as He sees fit..

...wise words!

FL

Gabrielman wrote:Okay well I have put in my two cents, I do tolerate homosexuals and if they want their own union well that is fine by me as long as it isn't marriage. I don't mind if they have benefits or whatever, but do they really have to have our union? Why not make their own?

My two cents would be that marriage isn't 'your' union, presumably meaning Christianity/Judaism. I don't see that Christianity owns marriage or that marriage belongs to Christianity. The idea of marriage is ancient and widespread so I suppose much of my issue is in the claiming of marriage by one religious group. In the UK at least, and I assume many other places, there were marriages going on before Christianity appeared and there a plenty of marriages that have nothing to do with Christianity. I was married in a ceremony devoid of religion, so in that sense 'they've' already got 'your' union.

Then let's make unions for any group of individuals that have publicly proclaimed a love and commitment twoards one another. For, after all, that is the reasoning for allowing homosexuals marriage....that they can love and commit to each other just as heterosexual couples. (we have no "right" to deny them a union that they can experience similar to heterosexual union)

Thus we have now defined marriage as any sexual relationship between persons who love each other and are committed to each other. In which case we have no valid basis for denying any group the title of marriage. (given consent)

Well, considering that there is no "test" for love and commitment (as we have sadly found out for heterosexual unions), we have no basis for denying three men to get married, or polygamy to be legal, or four women....for their claim of love and commitment is just as valid as homosexuals....

I read something similar you wrote in the thread Jack started too, it doesn't really make sense to me.

We're not redefining marriage as "any sexual relationship between persons who love each other and are committed to each other". The definition is simply changing from between a man a woman of a certain age to between two people of a certain age.

We don't have to do anything at all once that move is made.

It's changing from two people of the opposite sex to two people of whatever sex- that's not an automatic slippery slope to people marrying 15 animals. You are free to predict that this may be the case or say that we have to do x,y and z once we allow gay marriage, but we don't. It may lead to discussion upon, and the even the allowance of polygamy, but to be honest it doesn't really bother me either. Polygamy has long be within marriage the world over at different times and places. Homosexuality has also been included within the domain of marriage before. The definitions change over time, some things get taken out and put back in, and taken out again. The definition of marriage has already been divorced from religion or God where I live, although one is free to incorporate a religious aspect into the legal marriage ceremony it is necessarily a part of marriage- surely the removal of God is a bigger issue than this one, and once you have the option to remove God from the marriage what Jesus said about the matter begins to lose relevance.

Well, considering that there is no "test" for love and commitment

True there is no test for love but the test for commitment is generally accepted in society as the signing of a legal marriage or civil partnership certificate, also things like adoption certificates, admittedly not a 100% accurate test but it's the best we got.

It's not a slippery slope, it's simply what is fair. I'm not claiming that homosexual marriage will be a slippery slope. I'm saying that according to the logic involved, we have established that the definition of open to change. It's not the genders invovled that define marriage, it's the fact that they love each other and are willin gto commit to each other.

So there is nothing special about the genders involved....so we change the definition of marriage.

So what's so special about the number of people involved???

The response might be....they can't love each other like two people can....

so why do we have this bigoted view about group love???? If *they* say they love each other....if the people invovled in polygamist relationships all claim to love and commit to each other....then why deny them a legal marriage?

If three men claim they love each other, then how can we, in all fairness, prove that wrong??!?!? It's not as if we seek to prove two homosexuals who claim they love each other actually do indeed love each other, or two heterosexuals for that matter.

In other words..*you* are willing to accept that two people of the same gender can love and commit to each other. But you are unwilling to grant that ability to group of people. And yet what basis do you have that the two poeple can and the three or four people can't???? You only have their own proclamation of love to attest to the love and commitment. But because *you* are ok with it, you accept it. In fact, it's Your own bias....*you* have declared that homosexual love and commitement is not only ok but an institution to be protected and yet you are willing to be biased again polygamy and other groups.

Well I'll go with legalizing same sex marriage and seeing how it goes. If there is a reasonable demand for polygamy then we can look down the road of polygamous rights, if that goes fine then allowing legalization of it then perhaps some sort of civil partnership for it and if that goes fine then looking to again incorporate it into marriage - I imagine polygamy would be a rather different beast in a society which has far more equality between men and women that past societies have had. Small steps, see how it goes, as has been done with homosexuality - from illegality to marriage, at least in some countries - not overnight but over decades. tbh it's probably not something I imagine this generation will have much say in if it comes to pass, it will be the choice of the next generation or the ones after that at least where I live.

It's not a slippery slope

Apologies, I was attributing that statement to you from the other thread when it was in fact Jac

My two cents would be that marriage isn't 'your' union, presumably meaning Christianity/Judaism. I don't see that Christianity owns marriage or that marriage belongs to Christianity. The idea of marriage is ancient and widespread so I suppose much of my issue is in the claiming of marriage by one religious group. In the UK at least, and I assume many other places, there were marriages going on before Christianity appeared and there a plenty of marriages that have nothing to do with Christianity. I was married in a ceremony devoid of religion, so in that sense 'they've' already got 'your' union.

Let me put this forth, it is our union because it has been around since God created man kind, so when God made earth and human kind He also gave US this union, and seeing as our faith came first (note:Jews were pre-Christian yes, but we are part of the Jewish faith in a way, we follow the same God, that is another topic entirely though) then it means that we do in fact own that union. However you are entitled to your opinion, just thought I would tell you that since we came first that there were no marriages before us. However you still haven't given me a good reason why you shouldn't call it something else. Hows this sound, remove all the legal right like tax breaks and things of that nature from marriage, then would it be such a big deal? Either way like I said it would not be hard for them to make a union together and call it something else. Marriage needs to be between one man and one woman in the eyes of the Lord God, that is my faith and what I believe and that won't change for me, ever. Peace.

Gabrielman wrote:Let me put this forth, it is our union because it has been around since God created man kind, so when God made earth and human kind He also gave US this union, and seeing as our faith came first (note:Jews were pre-Christian yes, but we are part of the Jewish faith in a way, we follow the same God, that is another topic entirely though) then it means that we do in fact own that union. However you are entitled to your opinion, just thought I would tell you that since we came first that there were no marriages before us. However you still haven't given me a good reason why you shouldn't call it something else. Hows this sound, remove all the legal right like tax breaks and things of that nature from marriage, then would it be such a big deal? Either way like I said it would not be hard for them to make a union together and call it something else. Marriage needs to be between one man and one woman in the eyes of the Lord God, that is my faith and what I believe and that won't change for me, ever. Peace.

I doubt any of the homosexuals interested in marriage are looking for a legal religious union, but rather are looking for a legal CIVIL union. This can only be given by the STATE. There are a few words that the priest/pastor/officiator uses in weddings that makes the marriage legal and it is THOSE words that give the rights that same-sex marriage proponents are looking for...not the religious "right".

We, by our own bias, are making this CIVIL issue into a civil/religious issue when we should acknowledge that Church and State should stay separate. Why are we (Christians) even worried about a CIVIL union of marriage? Granting this may or may not degrade "marriage" as we see, but just look at the marriage/divorce statistics and you'll see we heteros have probably desecrated the sanctity of marriage far beyond what adding a few more to the statistics would show. Same-sex marriage is only looking for CIVIL RIGHTS, not religious acceptance. They're looking for the right to make medical decisions for their spouse, to inherit their spouse's pension when they die...these are the things they're looking for. Not a stamp a approval from the Church.
.
.

Gabrielman:

I largely agree with Bav on this one.

I think the logic is kinda self serving:

Let me put this forth, it is our union because it has been around since God created man kind, so when God made earth and human kind He also gave US this union, and seeing as our faith came first (note:Jews were pre-Christian yes, but we are part of the Jewish faith in a way, we follow the same God, that is another topic entirely though) then it means that we do in fact own that union.

If you subscribe to the Judeo/Christain thought then you think that God owns marriage and presumably defines it through the bible, if you don't then that God doesn't. As many marriages, my own included, are based on civil rights and commitment then many marriages are already not owned by your group, mine is a contract with my wife, the government and to some extent my daughter. It's the domain of the government. If you wish to say that you don't recognize my marriage as it had nothing to do with Christianity or God, that's fine - just don't interfere with the legal rights we have.

However you still haven't given me a good reason why you shouldn't call it something else. Hows this sound, remove all the legal right like tax breaks and things of that nature from marriage, then would it be such a big deal? Either way like I said it would not be hard for them to make a union together and call it something else. Marriage needs to be between one man and one woman in the eyes of the Lord God, that is my faith and what I believe and that won't change for me, ever. Peace.

In your eyes marriage may involve God, in the eyes of many married people it_does_not. At least in the UK, and I imagine in the US, the inclusion of God in the marriage ceremony is an optional extra.

It seems on one hand you are against changing the definition of marriage to something you don't agree with but are happy to suggest redefining marriage as it currently stands so that it becomes solely about what you believe even if that means nullifying the marriages of millions of people, those who will make no pledge before God or the Church. In the UK marriage has never been solely about God, it was largely a civil practice until the Church took an interest in it, these days you can have it with or without the Church, the common factor is the social contract not the religious element.

I had already committed to my wife long before I got married, the marriage was to make family life run a little more smoothly and serves as a comfort to know that if something terrible happens I will be her voice and she will be mine.

As it stands it would appear that a huge number of marriages already in existence you do not recognize, why should another few hurt. In the definition you give: "Marriage needs to be between one man and one woman in the eyes of the Lord God" As is it common practice and perfectly acceptable to remove God from the definition, does it really matter that much to you if man/woman changes to person or adult?

It's not like any of this is going to get in the way of you marrying someone in the eyes of God and perhaps not signing the legal documents as they don't fit your definition. Just as I got married by signing the legal docs but left out God as it didn't fit my definition.

To all involved in this, let me make this as simple as possible. Marriage is a God given union for one man of God and one woman of God to be united in Holy Matrimony. Period, not some thing that we can just twist and ruin and give to who ever wants it. If there are issues with those who have some government man invented thing about rights and whatever, good for them they can have their rights, but God does not recognize such unions. You want a union like that, fine whatever, but don't call it the God established Christian Union of Marriage, because that is not what it is. Hows this sound, why not remove all the legal stuff from this, if you get married to just take away all rights that you would get as a benefit, what then? Would you be fighting so hard then? Would you care then? What if all that came with it was that you had made a contract with God to be faithful to this person and have them be your one and only? Then would you really want to have marriage for all? God made marriage and it is His, and no one has the right to take it. A true Christian Nation would only Marry a Christian man with a Christian woman. So let's do what I said above, take out all the rights, just pretend that you don't need to be married to have them, then would this be such a big deal still? Would you still push push push until the Church gave you what you wanted? I don't think you would. It is a rights issue and if you want some government contract saying that you have certain rights then so be it, but it is not by definition Marriage. Though like I said above I think we should just get rid of the rights, and if we did I am willing to bet that all the fighting over it would cease because they would have nothing to gain.
This is my faith, this is what I believe, and nothing you say can make me back down from it. I stand for God and what He put forth in His Word. You cannot tell me to accept your ideas on my faith, nor will I ever.

BavarianWheels wrote: We, by our own bias, are making this CIVIL issue into a civil/religious issue when we should acknowledge that Church and State should stay separate

I strongly disagree with you on this, a country without God is doomed. I believe that we should have God in the government, why? Look at what happened when we took His Word out of the schools. Teen Pregnancies went up, rapes and murders, thefts, morality went way down, and things got a lot worse. We need to put God in all we do, and that includes our government.
Peace

Proinsias wrote:Well I'll go with legalizing same sex marriage and seeing how it goes. If there is a reasonable demand for polygamy then we can look down the road of polygamous rights, if that goes fine then allowing legalization of it then perhaps some sort of civil partnership for it and if that goes fine then looking to again incorporate it into marriage -

But don't you see what you are doing??!? *You* are declaring it to be wrong....*you* are establishing that it must be examined...what gives you the right to declare that their union is any less "right" than gay marriage? Why should we wait??? There are hundreds of polygamist families that declare that their unions work and are loving. And you want to slowly grant them rights and legal status?

FOr that matter, why is polygamy wrong?!?!? Plenty of animal species have polygamous relationships

I imagine polygamy would be a rather different beast in a society which has far more equality between men and women that past societies have had.

IN what way do you suppose that their type of relationship automatically establishes different equality? And even if it did....so what? There are plenty of heterosexual relationships where the husband and wife regard their roles and each other as unequal (I am saddened to hear that but so it goes) and yet we grant them their rights.

Small steps, see how it goes, as has been done with homosexuality - from illegality to marriage, at least in some countries - not overnight but over decades. tbh it's probably not something I imagine this generation will have much say in if it comes to pass, it will be the choice of the next generation or the ones after that at least where I live.

NOw this sound like the slippery slope! Why wait?!??! ISn't it about time we refresh this entire antiquated idea of "marriage?" Why shouldn't it be groups of three men? groups of three women? four women....etc...


(of course I am being the devil's advocate and certainly what I d not believe but my questions are real, for a society that seems to be wanting to be quite liberal, we seem to be quite picky with the liberties we grant....)

Gabrielman wrote:To all involved in this, let me make this as simple as possible. Marriage is a God given union for one man of God and one woman of God to be united in Holy Matrimony. Period, not some thing that we can just twist and ruin and give to who ever wants it. If there are issues with those who have some government man invented thing about rights and whatever, good for them they can have their rights, but God does not recognize such unions. You want a union like that, fine whatever, but don't call it the God established Christian Union of Marriage, because that is not what it is. Hows this sound, why not remove all the legal stuff from this, if you get married to just take away all rights that you would get as a benefit, what then? Would you be fighting so hard then? Would you care then? What if all that came with it was that you had made a contract with God to be faithful to this person and have them be your one and only? Then would you really want to have marriage for all? God made marriage and it is His, and no one has the right to take it. A true Christian Nation would only Marry a Christian man with a Christian woman. So let's do what I said above, take out all the rights, just pretend that you don't need to be married to have them, then would this be such a big deal still? Would you still push push push until the Church gave you what you wanted? I don't think you would. It is a rights issue and if you want some government contract saying that you have certain rights then so be it, but it is not by definition Marriage. Though like I said above I think we should just get rid of the rights, and if we did I am willing to bet that all the fighting over it would cease because they would have nothing to gain.
This is my faith, this is what I believe, and nothing you say can make me back down from it. I stand for God and what He put forth in His Word. You cannot tell me to accept your ideas on my faith, nor will I ever.

When did God utter the word, 'marriage' as His word only? The fact of the matter is that you're trying to make the U.S. a Godly country when the country is trying to remove God from everything public and of the State. Why is it so bad to make 'marriage' lawful under civil law? Doing so does not remove the sanctity God placed on a man and woman becoming one flesh. It is not a matter of Church, it's a STATE matter. You're also trying to make the U.S. a Christian Nation when it clearly doesn't want to be. What you're wanting to do inevitably would lead us back to a New Dark Ages where we would 'witch hunt' all infidels...truly.

Gabrielman wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote:We, by our own bias, are making this CIVIL issue into a civil/religious issue when we should acknowledge that Church and State should stay separate

I strongly disagree with you on this, a country without God is doomed. I believe that we should have God in the government, why? Look at what happened when we took His Word out of the schools. Teen Pregnancies went up, rapes and murders, thefts, morality went way down, and things got a lot worse. We need to put God in all we do, and that includes our government.
Peace

I don't think God wants to be in government otherwise He would not have counseled against a king over Israel. We need to put God in all we do. Very correct, however that is an assignment for each person INDIVIDUALLY. If all U.S. citizens would do that, THEN the U.S. would result as a Godly nation.
.
.

Gabrielman:

You want a union like that, fine whatever, but don't call it the God established Christian Union of Marriage, because that is not what it is.

I think this is the solution really. I'm not claiming to have the "God established Christian Union of Marriage", I'm simply married. Two different things. Why don't Christians take the "God established Christian Union of Marriage", Islam can have "Islamic Marriage", I can have "civil marriage" and Hindu's can have "Hindu Marriage"?

I have the union, I didn't name it. It doesn't really bother me if they include same sex marriages or polygamous marriages. If pigs can marry it is in no way going to make what me and my wife have any less special.

Hows this sound, why not remove all the legal stuff from this, if you get married to just take away all rights that you would get as a benefit, what then? Would you be fighting so hard then? Would you care then?

If this was done from the beginning fine, that is not the case. Marriage has been a social institution as far back as we can go in human culture, with legal rights and social recognition. If the manner of marriage you are talking about was common I very much doubt it would have the status it now has, to try and remove social and legal status from one of the most important social and legal institutions the world has ever seen seems a little unfair to me.

I wouldn't care too much if marriage meant nothing more than the "God established Christian Union of Marriage". On the other hand I'm not about to have my marriage dissolved and enter into another agreement as I've found out my marriage doesn't tie in with Gabrielman's belief systems.

Would you still push push push until the Church gave you what you wanted?

It's not about the Church giving, it's about the government. I think we're on crossed wires here. What most people are fighting and campaigning for is something which you don't even recognise. I'm not fussed about what any particular Church is giving or withholding - as Ive said the Church had nothing to do with my marriage - if a Hindu explains to me to me that I'm not actually married as I was not married in a Hindu ceremony, that's fine but I'm not going to tear up my marriage certificate for fear of offending them.

It is a rights issue and if you want some government contract saying that you have certain rights then so be it, but it is not by definition Marriage.

You mean that's not how you define marriage - We wanted that contract and it was called 'marriage' - we had the option of including a religious element and we declined to do so.

Simply stating a definition does not make it so.

This is my faith, this is what I believe, and nothing you say can make me back down from it. I stand for God and what He put forth in His Word. You cannot tell me to accept your ideas on my faith, nor will I ever.

I'm not trying to change your faith, by all means go and get a God established Christian Union of Marriage when you feel the need, I'm not going to tell you that it needs to a solely social and legal contract.

Zoe:

But don't you see what you are doing??!? *You* are declaring it to be wrong....*you* are establishing that it must be examined...what gives you the right to declare that their union is any less "right" than gay marriage? Why should we wait??? There are hundreds of polygamist families that declare that their unions work and are loving. And you want to slowly grant them rights and legal status?

FOr that matter, why is polygamy wrong?!?!? Plenty of animal species have polygamous relationships

I'm not declaring it wrong. I think we should wait as society needs time to adjust to change. First removal of illegality then a move towards acceptance then a move towards recognized rights. I think all drugs should be legal but I think it would be a very bad idea to do it tomorrow, it will take time, baby steps and society needs to adjust. It would be nice to think that racism and homophobia could be removed overnight by changing laws but the reality is much more complicated and time consuming than signing a bill - people need to change and that doesn't happen overnight.

I imagine polygamy would be a rather different beast in a society which has far more equality between men and women that past societies have had.

IN what way do you suppose that their type of relationship automatically establishes different equality? And even if it did....so what? There are plenty of heterosexual relationships where the husband and wife regard their roles and each other as unequal (I am saddened to hear that but so it goes) and yet we grant them their rights.

I'm not saying that a certain type of relationship automatically establishes different equality. I'm saying that polygamy as practiced in the past may be a very different beast when practiced in a culture which has undergone a feminist revolution, albeit a revolution which still has a long way to go.

NOw this sound like the slippery slope! Why wait?!??! ISn't it about time we refresh this entire antiquated idea of "marriage?" Why shouldn't it be groups of three men? groups of three women? four women....etc...

I think these things take time, but I think the allowance of gay marriage is essentially refreshing the idea of marriage.

(of course I am being the devil's advocate and certainly what I d not believe but my questions are real, for a society that seems to be wanting to be quite liberal, we seem to be quite picky with the liberties we grant....)

I don't think I'm being overly picky, I working with what I see in society. I know many people of different races and sexualities, I see how society is biased against women, gays, blacks etc. I see racism, homophobia and sexism present in myself and see how it effects those I relate to. I've never encountered polygamy aside from tv shows, I've never had a polygamist open up to me. At this point all I can do is make hypothetical remarks as to how I may feel if it was presented to me in the way that racism, sexism and homophobia has been. In principle I don't necessarily object but all I have is the principle and no real experience of the people involved.