Evidence for God from Science

Here's what Christian integrity looks like! http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/07/ ... latestnews

Except, I'm not so sure her response was the best one - I bet a good attorney could make a case that her job couldn't make her go against her faith beliefs?

Philip wrote:Here's what Christian integrity looks like! http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/07/ ... latestnews

Except, I'm not so sure her response was the best one - I bet a good attorney could make a case that her job couldn't make her go against her faith beliefs?

I think that was a great response!

Here's a link about what Obama thinks:

https://palboaltd7.wordpress.com/2015/0 ... -marriage/

From the article:

"The implication was clear: Those who disagree with the idea of gay marriage based, for example, on their religious views, must change to be more like progressives who accept gay marriage." Barack Obama

According to LGBT activists, gay marriage was not the end game:

http://www.wnd.com/2015/06/lgbt-activis ... IEU61eg.99

From the article:

“Create a specific anti-fascist infrastructure of social media, legal, research and watchdog groups to expose and defeat the right wing culturally and politically,” writes the article’s authors, a trio of LGBT rights activists. “In sum, the work ahead for queers is to be transformative, not transfixed.”

"They will send activists out as community organizers wearing different hats. Some will come as “faith-based” leaders urging the embrace of homosexuality within traditional Christian churches, while others will focus on housing and employment discrimination and still others on getting the LGBT agenda more firmly entrenched into school systems both public and private."

Christianity does have a history of succeeding whenever it has been persecuted. It will probably be good for the Church as a whole; to separate the sheep from the goats so to speak. Those who believe God's Word and those who do not.

Philip wrote:
I bet a good attorney could make a case that her job couldn't make her go against her faith beliefs?

I bet this is exactly what will happen in the near future and is exactly what the liberal/progressive left wants... to stoke the fire while the proverbial iron is hot and go for the knock out punch of all the (perceived or not) religious intolerance they can get their hands on. The constitution has been raped by 6 people who think they know better than at least 60+% of the nation of 360 million people thinks... the time is now for both side to belly up to the bar and do whatever it takes to get their way both in a jurisprudence and philosophical way.

If we don't stand up now, our children and grandchildren will grow up in a completely different and far less free America than we have enjoyed. The president of the U.S. telling me to get in line ? Think again Mr. president, more in line with the Christian rhetoric you have professed with your lips for political gain, but denied with your actions for political promises kept... and as we all know, actions speak far louder than words. Especially lies...

If we don't stand up now, our children and grandchildren will grow up in a completely different and far less free America than we have enjoyed.

And THAT is what I meant by questioning whether she should have just handed them her job without challenging their right to force her to do something her faith would compel her otherwise. As a response as to whether to obey God's laws or those of men - well, of course her response was inspiring. It's just that I think, at least for now, she could have done BOTH - taken a stand but not unnecessarily capitulating to godless forces. There will likely become a time in which she would have no choice. I'm not sure we're quite there yet - AS LONG AS enough judges are around who have common sense and an allegiance to constitutional (see NON-ACTIVIST) law.

Philip wrote:

If we don't stand up now, our children and grandchildren will grow up in a completely different and far less free America than we have enjoyed.

And THAT is what I meant by questioning whether she should have just handed them her job without challenging their right to force her to do something her faith would compel her otherwise. As a response as to whether to obey God's laws or those of men - well, of course her response was inspiring. It's just that I think, at least for now, she could have done BOTH - taken a stand but not unnecessarily capitulating to godless forces. There will likely become a time in which she would have no choice. I'm not sure we're quite there yet - AS LONG AS enough judges are around who have common sense and an allegiance to constitutional (see NON-ACTIVIST) law.

I see what you're saying Philip. But, I can understand what she did. If she stood her ground, most likely she would've faced the stress of a lawsuit. I can't object to anyone who doesn't want to put herself through that.

Rick wrote:
if she stood her ground, most likely she would've faced the stress of a lawsuit.

and this, to me is exactly what the progressive left wants, an early law suit that fans the flames to keep the topic hot and nasty and show all the earth how bigoted and religiously repressive Christians are. They'll use whatever means they have to create the strawman argument even if it means lies and partial truths to prevail. The law suit is there modus operandi...aka: see latest (2) SCOTUS final outcomes. No jurisprudence involved all politically correct pandering that suits the left just fine while leaving 60% of the country up the creek without a paddle.

Law suits are there best friend and we should be directing our efforts towards new laws, not old ones.... we've already lost that venue. As the president is so fond of saying..." it's the law of the land, get used to it...."

EssentialSacrifice wrote:

Rick wrote:
if she stood her ground, most likely she would've faced the stress of a lawsuit.

and this, to me is exactly what the progressive left wants, an early law suit that fans the flames to keep the topic hot and nasty and show all the earth how bigoted and religiously repressive Christians are. They'll use whatever means they have to create the strawman argument even if it means lies and partial truths to prevail. The law suit is there modus operandi...aka: see latest (2) SCOTUS final outcomes. No jurisprudence involved all politically correct pandering that suits the left just fine while leaving 60% of the country up the creek without a paddle.

Law suits are there best friend and we should be directing our efforts towards new laws, not old ones.... we've already lost that venue. As the president is so fond of saying..." it's the law of the land, get used to it...."

I read a great response to this issue for Christian bakers and bushiness that are involved in the Marriage market would be this caveat:

This is a Christian Business, we will provide a cake for you but be forewarned that we will preach the gospel to you...as that is our protected right under the US Constitution's Bill of Rights First Amendment.

As for churches, these are traditional vows:

from Vow Link

Basic Protestant Vows

"I, ___, take thee, ___, to be my wedded husband/wife, to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death do us part, according to God's holy ordinance; and thereto I pledge thee my faith [or] pledge myself to you."

Episcopal

"______, wilt thou have this woman/man to be thy wedded wife/husband to live together after God's ordinance in the Holy Estate of matrimony? Wilt thou love her/him? Comfort her/him, honor and keep her/him, in sickness and in health, and forsaking all others keep thee only unto her/him as long as you both shall live?"

"In the name of God, I, ______, take you, ______, to be my wife/husband, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and health, to love and to cherish, until we are parted by death. This is my solemn vow."

Methodist

"Will you have this woman/man to be your wife/husband, to live together in holy marriage? Will you love her/him, comfort her/him, honor, and keep her/him in sickness and in health, and forsaking all others, be faithful to her/him as long as you both shall live?"

"In the name of God, I, ______, take you, ______, to be my wife/husband, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, until we are parted by death. This is my solemn vow."

Presbyterian

"______, wilt thou have this woman/man to be thy wife/husband, and wilt thou pledge thy faith to him/her, in all love and honor, in all duty and service, in all faith and tenderness, to live with her/him, and cherish her/him, according to the ordinance of God, in the holy bond of marriage?"

"I, ______, take you, ______, to be my wedded wife/husband, and I do promise and covenant, before God and these witnesses, to be your loving and faithful husband/wife, in plenty and want, in joy and in sorrow, in sickness and in health, as long as we both shall live."

After quoting a wedding vow you mention this:

Please understand that you are asking us to cruse you and this we cannot do in good conscience therefore you have the right to go elsewhere...

This is what the bible says on this matter...

Romans 1:26,27,28,29,30,31,32 and 1 Cor 6:9,10...

You are asking us to curse you as well as ourselves to marry you, therefore in good conscience we as Christians do not curse others so respect our belief system protected under the First Amendment of the US Constitution which states: Religion and Expression. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Do you understand that you are demanding that we curse you and ourselves to marry under God's sight - the very God who calls your lifestyle choice a grievous sin against the laws of nature and natures God?

Therefore, please understand that you are asking us to curse you and this we cannot do in good conscience therefore you have the right to go elsewhere...
-
-
-
P.S. Please shout this from the roof tops...

I support these clerks who are refusing to grant licenses and/or who are quitting in protest, but I would be careful about making this a matter of Christian integrity. At the risk of causing a big fight, I don't have anymore of a problem with a county clerk granting a marriage certificate to a gay couple than I do to them granting a marriage certificate to a couple in which one or both parties is formerly divorced or to a couple in which one or both parties is impotent or to a couple that has decided they never want children. The fact is, all of these are examples of granting marriage licenses even when there are impediments to marriage. We have a long history of the practice, so why object to this particular impediment? That doesn't strike me as particularly rational . . .

To be clear, I am not condoning or promoting gay marriage as valid or moral or even permissible. What I am saying is that we either want our clerks to consider impediments or we don't, and as we have a long history of not asking them to look into such impediments, then I don't have a problem with them not looking into this one, either. Now, if we, as a society, decide that it is important for them to consider impediments, then they ought to consider all of them, including the ones mentioned above.

It is not, then, a matter of Christian integrity for someone to grant or not grant marriage licenses to gay couples. It seems to me that it is rather a matter of personal conscience and freedom.

Jac wrote:

It is not, then, a matter of Christian integrity for someone to grant or not grant marriage licenses to gay couples. It seems to me that it is rather a matter of personal conscience and freedom.

I agree. And I'm glad that the woman quit, if her conscience wouldn't allow her to grant a license to a couple who she believed wasn't in a legitimate marriage.

But comparing the refusal to grant a license to a homosexual couple, to a couple who is impotent or doesn't want children (how would the clerk know either) doesn't make any sense. When a couple comes in to get a license, it's usually pretty clear if both people are the same sex. For whatever reason you think impotence or a choice not to have children makes a difference, that's certainly not evident when two people are applying for a marriage license.

And the divorce/remarriage issue is strictly a biblical issue. Unless you want to prohibit marriage licenses to non-Christians.

Divorce/remarriage is not a strictly biblical issue. The same natural law that forbids or makes same sex marriage absurd is opposed to divorce/remarriage. I know that is a very unpopular position among Protestants, but that is just our own inconsistency. And, due to the nature of the debate, I have to immediately add here that I'm not condemning those who are divorced and remarried. You know my own theology in that all sins, even the sin of divorce and remarriage, is covered by the Cross. You also know the immediate arguments there that run to Rom 6:1, so I won't go into all that.

As such, I don't think the comparison here is inappropriate. Yes, two people of the same sex is easier to spot than someone's marital history or other such matters. But it strikes me as a little silly to tell clerks (who are nothing more than the particular aspect of society that does things like grant marriage licenses) to adopt what amounts to a don't ask don't tell policy--that I'll grant you a marriage license so long as I'm ignorant of your impediments. Such a policy actively encourages society to lie by omission, and promoting lying is contrary to the common good. Therefore, our law needs to either require clerks to look into all impediments or to ignore them and only rely on legal statutes.

That's my 1 cent, anyway.

Jac3510 wrote:Divorce/remarriage is not a strictly biblical issue. The same natural law that forbids or makes same sex marriage absurd is opposed to divorce/remarriage. I know that is a very unpopular position among Protestants, but that is just our own inconsistency. And, due to the nature of the debate, I have to immediately add here that I'm not condemning those who are divorced and remarried. You know my own theology in that all sins, even the sin of divorce and remarriage, is covered by the Cross. You also know the immediate arguments there that run to Rom 6:1, so I won't go into all that.

As such, I don't think the comparison here is inappropriate. Yes, two people of the same sex is easier to spot than someone's marital history or other such matters. But it strikes me as a little silly to tell clerks (who are nothing more than the particular aspect of society that does things like grant marriage licenses) to adopt what amounts to a don't ask don't tell policy--that I'll grant you a marriage license so long as I'm ignorant of your impediments. Such a policy actively encourages society to lie by omission, and promoting lying is contrary to the common good. Therefore, our law needs to either require clerks to look into all impediments or to ignore them and only rely on legal statutes.

That's my 1 cent, anyway.

Jac,

Could you explain how the natural law is against divorce/remarriage?

And, divorce/remarriage seems to be permitted, biblically, per Matthew 19:9 and other verses.
So, if a couple comes in for a marriage license, and the woman is divorced from her husband who committed adultery, the clerk should make sure the woman was cheated on before she grants the marriage license? Maybe there should be a form that has to be filled out, asking if one of the two applying for a marriage license was ever divorced? And if he/she answers "yes", then a follow up question should ask if his /her previous spouse committed adultery?

And let me get this straight, if someone is impotent, he shouldn't be able to get married? That's what you're saying?

If people don't want children, they shouldn't be able to get married?

On divorce/remarriage, very quickly, granting that marriage is a sexual union for the purpose of bearing and raising children, it's as easy to see that the union is intended by nature/God to be lifelong as it is to see that the union is to be between a male and female. In the first place, human children are extremely dependent on their parents for well over a decade. They typically can't even walk for a full year after birth! Second, given the way our sex drives work (to say nothing of experience), it's pretty clear that a typical marriage resulting in a child will normally and naturally result in more children in relatively short order. It's natural in every sense of the word to have, say, three children over the course of five or six years. That means that you have highly dependent children for nearly two decades, and arguably more.

Human men and larger and stronger than human females and their paternal instinct and preferences tend to be different from human females. The former are perfectly suited to go "out" and work and the latter are perfectly suited (and in the first few years of the child's life, biologically designed) to be "home with" the children. Add to this the well established fact that children develop best with a mother and a father--this is a function of their nature--and the conclusion is obvious. Nature and God intend for a man and a woman to unite, have children, and to raise those children until they are able to go out on their own and start their own families. That process means the man and the woman are naturally to be united for at least a couple of decades. But, of course, we also know that families are very much strengthened by their extended families, especially grandparents, and it is very harmful to all involved for a couple to separate when their children are grown and are having their own kids. The implication in all of this is that the marriage, which has at its most essential nature the idea of creating, perpetuating, and stabilizing society, is a lifelong union. To break that union at any time is contrary to the its basic nature, and that is because it is contrary to the way human beings are designed, that is, how our nature really is.

That is a VERY brief overview. For more, I'd strongly recommend you read/review Feser's Last Superstition, which goes into some of this.

As to your other questions:

Yes, I am saying that a clerk ought to ask about marriage history. That should be part of the marriage licensing process and, in fact, it should already be on record with the state. This is one of reasons, by the way, that I oppose no fault divorce and think that our adoption of it leads necessarily and directly to all of the problems we are facing today: gay marriage, polygamy, incest, cohabitation, increasing divorce rate (and all the social ills associated with that, including, especially, high poverty and crime rates), declining birth rate, etc. A divorce is an impediment to marriage unless the divorce happened due to adultery or abandonment. That last clause is not merely a biblical exception but one of natural law. Consider the argument above and then consider what happens when a man or woman cheats on or divorces his/her mate. The entire structure of the marriage and therefore the basis of society is violated/destabilized. The other spouse is free, then, to engage in a union that is to that purpose.

Yes, I am saying that if a person is impotent, they should not be permitted to marry. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but it's no harsher than saying to a homosexual that he cannot marry his lover or to a married man that he cannot also marry his mistress. We're talking natural law, no more and no less. The reason is that an impotent person cannot consummate the marriage and so cannot be in a sexual union with their spouse. Do note, by the way, that I am talking about impotence and not about infertility/sterility. This latter condition is tragic but not an impediment to marriage. The couple can still consummate the marriage and so the marriage is still valid.

And lastly, yes, I am saying that people who never intend to have children ought not be willing to marry. Again, the nature and definition of marriage is a lifelong, sexual union for the purpose of bearing and raising children. If someone does not want to bear and raise children, then the whole idea of them entering into marriage is as absurd as someone who hates baseball to pay for tickets to a baseball game.

What all of these questions have in common is that they presume that marriage is a private love-contract between two people that is designed to primarily provide love and companionship. But that is not what marriage is. And conservatives need to recognize that. If we are going to insist that marriage is nothing more than a love contract, then fine, we can allow no-fault divorce, and we can allow people who are divorced to remarry, people who don't want kids to marry, people who are impotent to marry, etc. But while we are at it, we also need to be consistent and allow anyone who wants to be with another person for love and companionship to marry, regardless of other impediments, such as gender, number, and family relation. There is simply no principled argument to allow forbidding to men to enter into a love contract but allowing two divorced heterosexual couples who have decided that they will never have children to do so.

Jac wrote:
On divorce/remarriage, very quickly, granting that marriage is a sexual union for the purpose of bearing and raising children, it's as easy to see that the union is intended by nature/God to be lifelong as it is to see that the union is to be between a male and female. In the first place, human children are extremely dependent on their parents for well over a decade. They typically can't even walk for a full year after birth! Second, given the way our sex drives work (to say nothing of experience), it's pretty clear that a typical marriage resulting in a child will normally and naturally result in more children in relatively short order. It's natural in every sense of the word to have, say, three children over the course of five or six years. That means that you have highly dependent children for nearly two decades, and arguably more.

I'm with you on this. With the exception of your saying that marriage is a sexual union for the purpose of bearing and raising children. I believe that's true, but if a couple doesn't want or can't have children, they should still be able to get married. The human sexual desire is very strong. And if those who don't want/can't have children can't get married, then there's no way to deal with the strong natural desire to have sex.

Yes, I am saying that a clerk ought to ask about marriage history. That should be part of the marriage licensing process and, in fact, it should already be on record with the state. This is one of reasons, by the way, that I oppose no fault divorce and think that our adoption of it leads necessarily and directly to all of the problems we are facing today: gay marriage, polygamy, incest, cohabitation, increasing divorce rate (and all the social ills associated with that, including, especially, high poverty and crime rates), declining birth rate, etc. A divorce is an impediment to marriage unless the divorce happened due to adultery or abandonment. That last clause is not merely a biblical exception but one of natural law. Consider the argument above and then consider what happens when a man or woman cheats on or divorces his/her mate. The entire structure of the marriage and therefore the basis of society is violated/destabilized. The other spouse is free, then, to engage in a union that is to that purpose.

Don't disagree with what you're saying, now that you clarified your stance on cheating and divorce. It initially sounded like you just made a blanket statement that anyone who is divorced, shouldn't get remarried.
As far as the what the clerk ought to do regarding looking into marriage history, is that in the scope of a clerk's job? I don't know. And maybe the clerk just has an ethical problem with homosexual marriage.

Yes, I am saying that if a person is impotent, they should not be permitted to marry. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but it's no harsher than saying to a homosexual that he cannot marry his lover or to a married man that he cannot also marry his mistress. We're talking natural law, no more and no less. The reason is that an impotent person cannot consummate the marriage and so cannot be in a sexual union with their spouse. Do note, by the way, that I am talking about impotence and not about infertility/sterility. This latter condition is tragic but not an impediment to marriage. The couple can still consummate the marriage and so the marriage is still valid.

As far as impotence, I'm assuming you mean permanent impotence, if there is such a thing. Plenty of men are temporarily impotent, for whatever reason. Would you say they can't get married until they get Viagra?

And lastly, yes, I am saying that people who never intend to have children ought not be willing to marry. Again, the nature and definition of marriage is a lifelong, sexual union for the purpose of bearing and raising children. If someone does not want to bear and raise children, then the whole idea of them entering into marriage is as absurd as someone who hates baseball to pay for tickets to a baseball game.

And it's interesting that in the previous paragraph you said you have no problem with infertile/sterile people getting married because it's not an impediment to being able to consummate the marriage. Even though they can't bear nor raise children (with the exception of adoption). Yet, in this paragraph you said marriage is a sexual union for the purpose of bearing and raising children. And before, you said people who don't want children ought not get married. It seems a little inconsistent. Sterile people who won't have children, can consummate the marriage, so they can get married. Yet a couple who doesn't want children, who can also consummate the marriage, shouldn't get married.

Maybe only infertile couple who plan on adopting children, should get married, right?

What all of these questions have in common is that they presume that marriage is a private love-contract between two people that is designed to primarily provide love and companionship. But that is not what marriage is. And conservatives need to recognize that. If we are going to insist that marriage is nothing more than a love contract, then fine, we can allow no-fault divorce, and we can allow people who are divorced to remarry, people who don't want kids to marry, people who are impotent to marry, etc. But while we are at it, we also need to be consistent and allow anyone who wants to be with another person for love and companionship to marry, regardless of other impediments, such as gender, number, and family relation. There is simply no principled argument to allow forbidding to men to enter into a love contract but allowing two divorced heterosexual couples who have decided that they will never have children to do so.

I think these are valid points. But the definition of marriage has been changed. It's just a contract, whether love is involved or not.
The can of worms has been opened. And it has fallen down the slippery slope.

Yes, the definition has been changed, and that goes to my initial point and to why I don't have a problem with Christian clerks granting marriage licenses. The fact is that we changed the definition a long time ago and we have a long history of not asking them to look into impediments. If they can't do so by their conscience, then fine. I support their right not to do so, and I do think that they should have legal protections in that regard. But I just don't think this is really a matter of Christian integrity, strictly speaking. It's more of a Christian liberty thing.

As far as the sterile being allowed to marry, there is an important distinction to make here. It is not having children or even the intention of having children that consummates the marriage. It is, rather, the sexual union itself (the sexual act) that consummates the marriage. The natural fruit of the sexual act is children. But natural fruit does not mean necessary fruit, and thus, it does not follow that every time a married couple is together that children must be the result, such that where there are no children from any given encounter that the encounter itself is somehow unreal or delegitimized.

So we have three situations that this especially applies to:

1. Impotent people: yes, I am talking about permanent impotence, not ED. There are both males and females who are impotent, where "impotent" means "unable to engage in intercourse." Such people cannot consummate their marriage, and therefore, they cannot truly and fully enter into marriage. That is why impotence is an impediment to marriage, which is to say, we should no grant marriage licenses to married people.

2. Sterile people: people who are sterile are capable of engaging in intercourse and can therefore consummate their marriage. The only way to suggest sterility as an impediment to marriage would be to say that if intercourse does not result in children that it is not true intercourse. But that is absurd. It's still intercourse, and so the marriage is still consummated! You may suggest that given the fact that marriage is a union for the bearing and raising of children that we have a problem, but that goes away when you realize that the last clause "for the bearing and raising of children" is actually tautological in this case. It's only necessary to add that phrase because of our culture's failure to understand the sexual union itself. We really don't need the phrase anymore than you would need to say, "That is a triangle with three sides." Anyone who understands what a triangle is already would find that an odd statement. And so it is here. The sexual union is obviously and naturally for the purpose of bearing children. Go read an introductory biology book! But if all that is true, then it is clear that people who are sterile can still be sexually united even if for some reason conception is prevented.

Now, such a marriage would be a fruitless marriage, and, frankly, we should admit that such a marriage would be less valuable to society than a fruitful marriage. Such a couple should pray for a miracle, for God to open the womb, so to speak. And perhaps He will. So just as not all relationships are equal (marriage is superior to other types of relationships), not all marriages are equal (some marriages are superior to others). But the fact that not all marriages are equal, it does not follow that one cannot enter into marriage at all if the marriage you can have is of a lesser value.

3. Intentionally childless people: this group is interesting because, unlike the other two, the issue here is one of the will. In the first two cases, the problem with having children is biological. Here, though, the couple is (theoretically) potent and fertile. I admit that they can consummate their marriage, just like the sterile can. But there seems to be a clear difference in that whereas sterile people are open to and even desire the fruit of marriage--having children--these people are asking to enter into a marriage (a sexual union) in which they themselves cut off either a) the sexual act (so they are in a business-only styled relationship . . . no sex, which is not a real marriage), or b) the natural fruit of the sexual act (children). What this couple is doing is invalidating what marriage naturally is.

Let me be very clear here: the impediment is of a different sort, as far as I can tell, in this third case than in the first. In the first, we can't issue a marriage license because the person cannot consummate the marriage. In the third case, we ought not issue a marriage license because the person does not desire the actual nature of the institution they are asking to enter into. This is very important! This third group is asking us to reduce marriage from a sexual union and as such the basis of a growing and stable society to a mere private love contract. And, as a matter of fact, that is exactly what we have done as a society, and the ramifications are HUGE. Society itself begins to collapse. It is a very, very, very selfish view of marriage, such that it is not marriage at all. For at its absolute core, marriage is not about YOU. It's about others: your spouse, your children, and society itself. This third view makes "marriage" all about you and in doing so invalidates its essential nature, such that what we are talking about isn't even marriage at all anymore but rather some poor imitation that looks like the divinely ordained institution but lacks all of its meaning.

So says I!