SCOTUS not enough- prop 8 jerks trying to find another way

[Virgil Showlion]

Jul 16, 2013 17:22:26 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Virgil, please.  Your beliefs simply don't translate into my life.  You have no idea what lessons I learned in life.  My parents were married for over 60 years and pretty much fought the whole time.  They really didn't like each other, at all, so love, loyalty and faithfulness weren't stressed to me.  Both talked to me about the other in unflattering terms, at one time, or another.  My father was not faithful.  Loyalty?  Nah.  More like "the family would disapprove", and "what else would I do?", and a pretty good dollop of habit.  My husband's parents' marriage was a freaking nightmare equal to, if not worse, than my parents' marriage.  We "benefited" not at all.  We both happened to be people who believe in treating others as we would be treated.  It's really that simple, and it doesn't come from religion.  It comes from logic and good sense.

God's laws derive from logic and good sense. Or put differently, the application of perfect logic would lead to God's laws.

I'm saying that regardless of whether you and your husband were aware of it, you comported with His laws vis a vis marriage and partook of the benefits. Likewise, if you decide not to steal simply because you're worried you might get caught, you'll still partake of the benefits of not being a thief.

[mmhmm]

If, for those of you who believe in God, God's law happens to coincide with something we who do not believe in God believe, or do, or say, or practice ... it's a coincidence, Virgil.  The application of  perfect logic leads to ... a logical conclusion.

[steff]

How hard is it for you to grasp that YOUR beliefs have NO affect on anyone other than YOU?  They don't apply to anyone other than YOU.  They aren't the be all end all to anyone other than YOU. 




A person's religion should be treated like their genetalia.  Don't show it off in public & don't shove it down anyone's throat who isn't interested. 

[Virgil Showlion]

Well, as I've said before, we'll eventually all find out one way or another.

We seem to have drifted off topic, hence thank you ladies for the debate. I shall check back in later this evening.

[steff]

[djAdvocate]

Jul 16, 2013 17:38:48 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jul 16, 2013 17:22:26 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Virgil, please.  Your beliefs simply don't translate into my life.  You have no idea what lessons I learned in life.  My parents were married for over 60 years and pretty much fought the whole time.  They really didn't like each other, at all, so love, loyalty and faithfulness weren't stressed to me.  Both talked to me about the other in unflattering terms, at one time, or another.  My father was not faithful.  Loyalty?  Nah.  More like "the family would disapprove", and "what else would I do?", and a pretty good dollop of habit.  My husband's parents' marriage was a freaking nightmare equal to, if not worse, than my parents' marriage.  We "benefited" not at all.  We both happened to be people who believe in treating others as we would be treated.  It's really that simple, and it doesn't come from religion.  It comes from logic and good sense.

God's laws derive from logic and good sense. .

some of them.  some of them are pretty arcane and peculiar, imo.

[EVT1]

Jul 16, 2013 17:38:48 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jul 16, 2013 17:22:26 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Virgil, please.  Your beliefs simply don't translate into my life.  You have no idea what lessons I learned in life.  My parents were married for over 60 years and pretty much fought the whole time.  They really didn't like each other, at all, so love, loyalty and faithfulness weren't stressed to me.  Both talked to me about the other in unflattering terms, at one time, or another.  My father was not faithful.  Loyalty?  Nah.  More like "the family would disapprove", and "what else would I do?", and a pretty good dollop of habit.  My husband's parents' marriage was a freaking nightmare equal to, if not worse, than my parents' marriage.  We "benefited" not at all.  We both happened to be people who believe in treating others as we would be treated.  It's really that simple, and it doesn't come from religion.  It comes from logic and good sense.

God's laws derive from logic and good sense. Or put differently, the application of perfect logic would lead to God's laws.

I'm saying that regardless of whether you and your husband were aware of it, you comported with His laws vis a vis marriage and partook of the benefits. Likewise, if you decide not to steal simply because you're worried you might get caught, you'll still partake of the benefits of not being a thief.

And God's laws are what? The big 10 or what else?  All I am aware of is what a bunch of men wrote down a long time ago- don't recall much about being gay.

BTW depending on your faith that is not true- just because you don't act you still sinned in your mind so no benefit.

Tell you where perfect logic does not lead- hell.  So right out of the gate any religion that speaks of hell is not worth listening to IMO. That was a great creation to put butts in seats on Sunday.   


. 

[Virgil Showlion]

Jul 16, 2013 21:05:51 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 16, 2013 17:38:48 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

God's laws derive from logic and good sense. .

some of them.  some of them are pretty arcane and peculiar, imo.

Understanding them takes study, but it's not rocket science. There are distinctions between laws, classes of laws, ordinances, statutes, the Law of Moses, the fulfillment of the Law, etc. Most Christians have little to no conception of them, but they become increasingly coherent and beautiful given sufficient study.

Tell you where perfect logic does not lead- hell. So right out of the gate any religion that speaks of hell is not worth listening to IMO. That was a great creation to put butts in seats on Sunday.

The Catholic notion of hell derives from Paganism and has no scriptural basis. The word "hell" in the Bible in fact translates from four different words, each of which has a separate meaning. I provided a detailed analysis in response to a question about it on the religion board some time ago.

You (and steff) have so little concept of what I believe that neither one of you has ever correctly postulated my position on a spiritual matter. Since we're discouraged from discussing religion in P&M and yet your incessant misfires compel me to clarify my actual beliefs, might we come to the agreement that I won't mention hell and damnation if you won't.

[Deleted]

 Being one of the few posters here without "moderator" or "Administrator" privileges, I'm not really allowed to address all the pseudo-religious shtick from the "End Times True Believers".
 Imagine if the psychiatric profession was prohibited from diagnosing "religious mania" or "superstitious delusions"

 What kind of mentality does a person have which would compel them to, at the behest of "heard voices", take their own child and slit its throat atop a pile of rocks?

[Virgil Showlion]

Jul 16, 2013 22:09:09 GMT -5 @patiencetried said:

 Being one of the few posters here without "moderator" or "Administrator" privileges, I'm not really allowed to address all the pseudo-religious shtick from the "End Times True Believers".
 Imagine if the psychiatric profession was prohibited from diagnosing "religious mania" or "superstitious delusions"

 What kind of mentality does a person have which would compel them to, at the behest of "heard voices", take their own child and slit its throat atop a pile of rocks?

I dunno. Somebody who went mad trying to deduce the relevance of your post to this discussion?

[EVT1]

I know about the translations and the words.  I will have to find your post on it.  Besides the fact I took religion as a mandatory course in grade school and high school, in addition to Sunday school- I also took a good class in college- Bible as literature- that was very interesting.   My instructor was from Israel and was fluent in several relevant languages.  We discussed the different translations all of the time- and original authors (J, P and E ring a bell?) -and surprising to me is that one of the Bibles I had from youth had footnotes in it explaining some of these differences- I'll give the Catholics points for being up front about it.  Not to mention they are OK with evolution as well

I still come to the conclusion that hell makes no sense at all regardless of what I was taught and especially regardless of dogma.  I reject it on more of a common sense level and it being the exact opposite of what God represents to me.  But I guess that is for the other board- might have to give it a visit.

[zibazinski]

Jews don't believe in hell.

[Deleted]

They really must be the "chosen ones"!!! 

[Deleted]

@virgil
You have repeatedly stated that if we have study the scriptures as in depth as you have then we would see that your beliefs are “right”. That’s just not true, though. Everyone interprets things differently, and their interpretation is “right” to them.

I think I can see why people get up in arms over some of your posts. Throw in a “I believe this to be right” or “my interpretation is thus” instead of “if you study the bible you’ll understand that I am right” and maybe we can keep the focus on the message instead of the delivery.

[Tennesseer]

Jul 17, 2013 8:06:57 GMT -5 @beerwench said:

@virgil
You have repeatedly stated that if we have study the scriptures as in depth as you have then we would see that your beliefs are “right”. That’s just not true, though. Everyone interprets things differently, and their interpretation is “right” to them.

I think I can see why people get up in arms over some of your posts. Throw in a “I believe this to be right” or “my interpretation is thus” instead of “if you study the bible you’ll understand that I am right” and maybe we can keep the focus on the message instead of the delivery.

[kittensaver]

Jul 16, 2013 16:37:43 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

It is kind of insulting to tell her she would have been better off with 2 good parents, when that wasn't in the cards for her & she had the option of a single mom or 2 married parents & being raised in an abusive house.

I'm not saying that a child raised in a broken or dysfunctional family will categorically underperform one raised in a functional one.

I'm saying that statistically, infidelity, divorce, single-parenthood all take a significant toll. Furthermore, the correlation between a couple's divorce rate and their parents' divorce rate is extremely high, meaning that marital dysfunction is likely to propagate and worsen with passing generations. Many couples are even forsaking marriage entirely because the concept of a lifelong marital contract is alien to them.

But God gives His grace to everyone, not just Bible-thumping Christians, and even children raised in the most abusive, unstable, unloving circumstances can sometimes prove to be exceptionally righteous individuals and capable parents.

Virgil: I have a very serious question for you.

Do you have any idea - from the perspective of someone who is not you - how belittling and demeaning this sounds? I'm NOT being snarky - I am dead serious. Well, this and a few other things you've said in this thread. Do you understand why people feel they are being judged and put-down when you make statements about they way you "think" things are "supposed" to be?

[Angel!]

Jul 17, 2013 8:06:57 GMT -5 @beerwench said:

@virgil
You have repeatedly stated that if we have study the scriptures as in depth as you have then we would see that your beliefs are “right”. That’s just not true, though. Everyone interprets things differently, and their interpretation is “right” to them.

  I have JWs come to my house & visit often & they some very different interpretations of the bible than most Christians.  But I will give it to them, they have scriptures to back up absolutely everything they believe.  They just interpret those scriptures different or as more important than others.

So, I don't believe there is any 100% correct interpretation of a book as large and complex as the bible.  Everyone is going to take away something slightly different.

[billisonboard]

Vonnegut, Cat's Cradle, Bokononism

Tiger got to hunt,
Bird got to fly;
Man got to sit and wonder, "Why, why, why?"

Tiger got to sleep,
Bird got to land;
Man got to tell himself he understand.
www.cs.uni.edu/~wallingf/personal/bokonon.html#calypsos

[Tennesseer]

Radical queens are at it again.



Gay marriage legalized in Britain after queen gives royal stamp of approval


LONDON -- Britain has legalized gay marriage after Queen Elizabeth II gave her royal stamp of approval on Wednesday.

House of Commons Speaker John Bercow told lawmakers that the royal assent had been given — the day after the bill to legalize same-sex marriage in England and Wales cleared Parliament.

The queen's approval was a formality. It clears the way for the first gay marriages next summer.

The bill enables gay couples to get married in both civil and religious ceremonies in England and Wales. It also will allow couples who had previously entered into a civil partnership to convert their relationship to a marriage.

worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/17/19521374-gay-marriage-legalized-in-britain-after-queen-gives-royal-stamp-of-approval?lite

[zibazinski]

I'm hardly surprised that England is okay with this. They've hidden their homosexualty for ever and now they can literally come out of the closet. Royals are among them big time.

[Deleted]

Hidden? England has recognized civil partnerships for close to a decade. 

[mmhmm]

Jul 17, 2013 10:13:51 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Radical queens are at it again.



Gay marriage legalized in Britain after queen gives royal stamp of approval


LONDON -- Britain has legalized gay marriage after Queen Elizabeth II gave her royal stamp of approval on Wednesday.

House of Commons Speaker John Bercow told lawmakers that the royal assent had been given — the day after the bill to legalize same-sex marriage in England and Wales cleared Parliament.

The queen's approval was a formality. It clears the way for the first gay marriages next summer.

The bill enables gay couples to get married in both civil and religious ceremonies in England and Wales. It also will allow couples who had previously entered into a civil partnership to convert their relationship to a marriage.

worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/17/19521374-gay-marriage-legalized-in-britain-after-queen-gives-royal-stamp-of-approval?lite

Yippee!  I sure hope my friends will bring part of their celebration over here, dern it!  I know them well enough to know they'll wish to convert to a marriage in the eyes of their country and their church.  That should be one whale of a shindig, and I hate missing those!

[mmhmm]

Jul 17, 2013 10:30:41 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

I'm hardly surprised that England is okay with this. They've hidden their homosexualty for ever and now they can literally come out of the closet. Royals are among them big time.

Oh, for crying out tears, zib!  Must we?  Really?  How many royals do you know, personally?  Hell, how many Englishmen do you know, personally?  Is the whole country homosexual, zib?

Cripes!  Can we please get a grip on this need to point fingers and condemn.  I'm gonna go get an Excedrin.  My head is sick of this stuff!

[Sum Dum Gai]

Is the whole country homosexual, zib?

The whole country is a bit off.  Tea drinking, goofy slang, and the accent makes them all sound like right tossers.

[Deleted]

'Cept for the Choades. 

ETA: to fix typo. Thank you UD! 

[swamp]

Jul 17, 2013 12:14:53 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

Is the whole country homosexual, zib?

The whole country is a bit off.  Tea drinking, goofy slang, and the accent makes them all sound like right tossers.

I thought the term was "limey poofters."

[Sum Dum Gai]

I've never heard poofter, limey wanker maybe.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jul 17, 2013 8:06:57 GMT -5 @beerwench said:

@virgil
You have repeatedly stated that if we have study the scriptures as in depth as you have then we would see that your beliefs are “right”. That’s just not true, though. Everyone interprets things differently, and their interpretation is “right” to them.

I think I can see why people get up in arms over some of your posts. Throw in a “I believe this to be right” or “my interpretation is thus” instead of “if you study the bible you’ll understand that I am right” and maybe we can keep the focus on the message instead of the delivery.

It's possible to argue from a position of scriptural consistency. Certain interpretations are contradictory, or are unsupported, or are flat-out incorrect, in the same way that certain scientific postulates are contradictory, are unsupported, etc., etc.

There are moral issues (my recent debate with Paul over the moral responsibility to repay creditors, for example) where I will argue strenuously for one position but acknowledge that my position is thinly supported or that I can find no scriptures that explicitly contradict an alternate interpretation. Homosexuality is not such an issue. In this thread, I provided the link to Prof. Gagnon's analysis, which mirror's my own justification for my beliefs. I consider it scripturally rigorous. I am a scientist and I endeavour to apply the same standards of objectivity and rigor to my analysis of scripture.

Likewise, in a debate on whether Anne Frank's diary is a piece of Jewish propaganda invented post-WWII, the debater arguing the pro side could undoubtedly procure dozens of reasonable, persuasive arguments that appear correct prima facie, but that upon detailed examination prove to lack consistency, contradict observable fact, lack support, etc., etc. There is a correct answer. Ms. Frank's diary is either authentic or it isn't. It makes no sense for an individual who has looked into the issue and found one position to be consistent, supportable, etc. and the alternative to be thoroughly disprovable to nevertheless equivocate with "...but this is just my interpretation."

I come across as an uncompromising know-it-all because the only scriptural issues I've ever discussed at length on NMSNM are homosexuality, marriage, and hell--all of which happen to be subjects closely proscribed by the Bible and yet are rife with demonstrably wrong interpretations.

There are hundreds more issues where you'd get "tough but equivocal" Virgil, such as in my debate with Paul, where I'm unable to disprove an opposing viewpoint and my language is more equivocating.

Jul 17, 2013 9:15:13 GMT -5 kittensaver said:

Jul 16, 2013 16:37:43 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I'm not saying that a child raised in a broken or dysfunctional family will categorically underperform one raised in a functional one.

I'm saying that statistically, infidelity, divorce, single-parenthood all take a significant toll. Furthermore, the correlation between a couple's divorce rate and their parents' divorce rate is extremely high, meaning that marital dysfunction is likely to propagate and worsen with passing generations. Many couples are even forsaking marriage entirely because the concept of a lifelong marital contract is alien to them.

But God gives His grace to everyone, not just Bible-thumping Christians, and even children raised in the most abusive, unstable, unloving circumstances can sometimes prove to be exceptionally righteous individuals and capable parents.

Virgil: I have a very serious question for you.

Do you have any idea - from the perspective of someone who is not you - how belittling and demeaning this sounds? I'm NOT being snarky - I am dead serious. Well, this and a few other things you've said in this thread. Do you understand why people feel they are being judged and put-down when you make statements about they way you "think" things are "supposed" to be?

The first paragraph is a direct rebuttal to steff's criticism.

The second is a statistical reality.

The third is a declaration that in spite of the statistical reality, there are always exceptions. Not all children raised by abusive, drunken pedophiles turn out to be abusers, drunks, and pedophiles. The majority do, unfortunately. The correlations are staggering. But there are always those that overcome.

If you find that worldview demeaning or offensive, so be it.

Jul 17, 2013 9:33:13 GMT -5 Angel! said:

Jul 17, 2013 8:06:57 GMT -5 @beerwench said:

@virgil
You have repeatedly stated that if we have study the scriptures as in depth as you have then we would see that your beliefs are “right”. That’s just not true, though. Everyone interprets things differently, and their interpretation is “right” to them.

  I have JWs come to my house & visit often & they some very different interpretations of the bible than most Christians.  But I will give it to them, they have scriptures to back up absolutely everything they believe.  They just interpret those scriptures different or as more important than others.

I get along fine with Jehova's Witnesses. They have a deep appreciation of scripture, they know what they believe and why they believe it, and I daresay we would agree on 90%+ of doctrinal issues.

We don't agree on everything, and I've challenged them on certain doctrines. Some of those challenges would fall into the category of "interpretation". For example, we obviously disagree on the role of the church and church members in proselytizing, and on the fundamental nature of proselytizing.

[swamp]

www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=poofter

[Tennesseer]

Anal assassins.