QUICK LINKS
Vermont appoints commission to consider gay marriage
A commission of ten members will study whether the citizens of Vermont are ready for a state law allowing homosexual marriage.
The commission will be holding six public hearings around the state to gauge the feelings of Vermonters on the subject. (Read story).
Does this is any way relate to the Northwest and Washington State in particular?
I think it does and here’s why.
First, the obvious. In every state from New England to New Mexico – from Florida to Washington State, gays are trying to redesign society as we have known it. They are having varying degrees of success, depending on the citizenry and the moral leadership in the various states.
There is another element to this that is important to Washington State as well. Some experts in Vermont feel that the Democrats who are pushing this agenda may be misreading the public.
After they passed civil unions legislation in 1999, a number of lawmakers were shocked when they ran for re-election. Several civil union-supporting Republicans were defeated by conservative challengers in the primary election. The Republican picked up one extra seat in the State Senate and Senate races were very close that year.
Now, seven years later, many of the liberal, secularist supporters of homosexual marriage believe there has been a shift in thinking on the issue and that Vermont is ready for the next step – gay marriage.
Eric Davis, a highly respected professor of political science at Middlebury College and a close observer of state politics said, “Lots of Vermonters have come to accept civil unions, but it’s not clear right now how they feel about gay marriage.”
Chris Ott, the communications guy for the A.C.L.U. of Massachusetts, has inserted himself into this story, saying no, everything is okay in Mass. He told the press, “There were a lot of people who thought the sky was going to fall in if we had gay marriage, but three years later, we can see that these things didn’t happen.”
Norma Shaprio, legislative director for the A.C.L.U. in Massachusetts said that while grassroots organizations fought them, the public and the legislators became educated on same-sex rights and became supporters.
But Professor Davis says he is puzzled by the move of the Democrats, feels they may not be in step with the public and may lose some seats in the moderate or conservative parts of Vermont.
Senators Ed Murray, Jim Moeller and others have promised Washington Sate that we will have homosexual marriage. After pleading their case for “benefits” on the Domestic Partnership law, as soon as it passed – the very day it became law, they were telling the press, “No, we don’t want ‘faux’ marriage, we want the real thing.”
Expect the same kind of deception as the marriage issue rolls out in Washington – and it will. In spite of DOMA.
They will plead for equality and attempt to link themselves to the African American Civil Rights movement. They will make every attempt to appeal to the good and decent part of us all as they re-engineer society and restructure the family unit from what it has been intended from the beginning, to their twenty-first century secularist version that accommodates and affirms a lifestyle that is both inconsistent with Biblical teaching and societal norms.
They will hope against hope that the citizens of Washington State will, “become educated and change your mind.”
They will also hope that some in the faith community will simply throw up their hands and profess that “gay marriage will come to Washington.”
Some in the faith community have done that already. Some were trying to offer a “reciprocal benefits” deal to the homosexuals during the last legislative session with the idea that that would be a compromise and would avoid gay marriage in the State.
Faith & Freedom took the position then and we take it now, that this is not a political issue – it is a spiritual one.
How do we accept the Bible and it’s teachings as God’s word for us today and then look for compromise on something as fundamental as Biblical teaching or marriage and the family?
God help us to see more clearly.
The gay marriage issue, I would think, will not be pushed forward in 2008 by those who lead it. I would think they will try to avoid it as an issue in a Presidential election year – but they’re pretty sure after their success this last session.
I am making a clear call to people of faith to “throw up” your hands in prayer, not defeat. And to become active – not just in conversation – but in action.
If you want to “Change the State,” please contact us.
________________
Gary Randall
President
Faith & Freedom
Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.
36 Comments:
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
First, the obvious. In every state from New England to New Mexico – from Florida to Washington State, gays are trying to redesign society as we have known it.
You mean the society where gays were presecuted, where they encouraged by the persecution to separate sex from love, and forced to live a life where it was safer to have anonymous sex than it was to pick one person to love and share their lives with openly and happily?
Who wouldn't want to redesign a society like that?
Seriously, this is about gay people wanting to fit into the existing society, picking one person to share their lives with, to build families and be secure in their marriages just like everyone else.
How many times are people going to listen to this knee-jerk fearmongering about 'gay marriage' without considering that even if they don't like it, it is far better than the historical alternatives.
Government marriage equality is what's best for the citizens and society.
Voshtur Ishanti,
So, you're saying that even if something isn't good for society, for example drugs, then because we know that people are going to do it anyway (and have even been persecuted for it in the past), then we should just accept that they're going to do it, so to make them happy, let's say it's okay/normal, then let our children be educated that it's perfectly normal?
People have done drugs for many years....
Accept it. It's normal.
Here, try some drugs because it's normal.
What?!? You don't do drugs? You biggotted drug hater!
Alex
P.S.
"Government marriage equality is what's best for the citizens and society."
1. That's your opinion, and for the record, I disagree.
2. B.S. !!!
Gary,
Your obsession with deviancy continues....
Surely the Lord must be speaking to about something different than what OTHER people are doing with their genitals and other body parts....yet that is all your heart thinks about (as the heart thinketh, so the pen writeth).
If it wasn't for you, I would not even know that homosexuals existed...
I would like to know that Jesus exists as well... just a thought.
Sincerely,
Human
Anon 4:39
What do plants created by God with psychoactive or stimulant qualities, e.g. coffee bean, have to do with unnatural human sexual behavior??
Thanks,
Human
So, you're saying that even if something isn't good for society, for example drugs, then because we know that people are going to do it anyway (and have even been persecuted for it in the past), then we should just accept that they're going to do it, so to make them happy, let's say it's okay/normal, then let our children be educated that it's perfectly normal?
Hmmm your analogy fails on several levels:
1) We DO allow drugs that aren't good for society, or aren't you familiar with caffeine, alcohol and the like?
2) Drugs can be pernicious in that the more people that use the them more people that may. There is no indication that acceptance or persecution of gay people changes their relative representation in the general population. If persecution doesn't actually change the prevalence of something what point is there to the persecution other than animus?
3) And of course if some people are different than others be it being left-handed, red-headed, choose to use substances like alcohol, caffeine or other legal drugs or whatever children should be taught that all people have a large degree of latitude in how they live their lives just as they do and if they expect to be tolerated then need to at least tolerate others legal choices.
We as a society DO allow people to be different and our society is based on the rationale it exists to serve the only real thing comprising it, the individual.
Do you believe that people have a right to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' or not I guess is the core issue. Sounds like you don't and I do - probably the crux of our disagreement.
You believe in "life...."
I didn't know you were Pro Life.
It's funny, "pursuit of Happiness" has been used to justify everything under the sun.
However, remember back when it was written (1776) there were many factions of the Christian religion who had come here to live in peace, and worship Jesus Christ as their conscience dictates. To pursue God and worship Him was the happiness and the goal of men then.
Now it seems to pursue every "imagination of the heart" -usually which leads to death and destruction (ie aids, VD, etc....) is what people believe that to be.
Too bad. If only people would learn their history, maybe they too, could find true "happiness."
One thing gay activists like Ed Murray DO NOT WANT, is anything about gay marriage going to the vote of the people! They want to keep it in the legislature. They say the people have already spoken by their electing them to represent them! NEXT!
This is a snow job! The people of the state need good education and then need to vote themselves. The thing is, the gay activists do not want the general public well educated on the subject!
Mr. Ed Murray postioned himself over time, while in the House to the Chair of the Transportation Committee for the State. He knew what he was doing as every district in the state has a transportation issue and needs his support. So, it is the ol' tit-for-tat, "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine!" So, Mr. Ed Murray pulls transportation strings (does blackmail come to mind!) by getting the Reps to go for his issue of gay acceptance in trade for getting support on their transportan issues!
Now he is in the Senate and still going strong! He leaves an opening in the House which, of course brings in another supporter if not a gay person to fill his slot in the House! Clever sly people, what!?
The thing is, the "commission" is only good depending on who is on the commission! It still does not give the individual vote of the citizens!
Human and OV,
It is the ABUSE even of plants that are on this earth. There are plants that maybe are on the earth to "test" people, whether they will "eat of the dangerous herbs!" I don't doubt that that is possible! Even animals learn what to eat and what not to eat!
Otherwise, there are dangerous plant materials on the earth that, when used apporprately, can heal. Those same plant materials can also kill! Digitalis is one example.
Again, it is the abuse that is bad. Coffee is a good thing. TOO MUCH coffee is not!
It does come down to each person does need to learn to control themselves! In driving too fast, in drinking to excess (and habitually), drugs for recreation (that can lead to chronic usage), too much sex, wrong sexual practices (anal sex does carry high risk health issues), smoking regular tobacco has been beneficial to some people (EXCESSIVE smoking and second hand smoke can be very harmful)
See, it is the excessive practice and participation that is harmful to we humans.
By the way, how did AIDS get a strong foothold on humans? What is the primary method of transmission? How much money needs to go into research to PREVENT AIDS? What with the massive ammounts of money being raised by various means - even by Bill Gates! Here is a novel idea! Stop gay sex! Hello! I hear screams of hatred from the gay activists! They gnash their teeth at the idea! It is better to keep raising megabucks to research a cure! I think that means the drug companies are in for big bucks if they can come up with a drug or many that would "cure" or "prevent" AIDS! Talk about making big bucks off "the folks!" But, we will raise the taxes so eveyone can help pay for gays to continue to practice the high level of casual gay sex! And then a few of them will have sex with hetros or a naive young person who is wrestling with their sexual identity and infect them!
Does none of this ring a bell here???
I didn't know you were Pro Life.
Yep I am.
It's funny, "pursuit of Happiness" has been used to justify everything under the sun.
And it does as long as it doesn't interfere with someone else's right to 'life liberty...' That's what this nation was built upon, individual rights. We have laws to mediate conflicts between individuals but that's all they are supposed to do.
ie aids, VD, etc....
But that's why we should allow all citizens the right to be in monogamous loving relationships with their spouse and that it is to their and society's benefit to encourage this regardless of the gender of their spouse, correct?
Again, it is the abuse that is bad. Coffee is a good thing. TOO MUCH coffee is not!
So you are for monogamous marriages regardless of the gender of the spouses then, right?
By the way, how did AIDS get a strong foothold on humans?
Considering heterosexuals are by far the largest number of carriers and vectors I would say promiscuous heterosexual sex.
What is the primary method of transmission?
vaginal intercourse.
Stop gay sex!
You mean heterosexual sex, right? The VAST majority of HIV carriers are heterosexual - you do know that right?
Oh yes I know what you are saying - you don't care about africa or india but regardless if you want to prevent the spread of HIV then the way to do it is the same - promote monogamous sexual partners, and the way to do that is encourage such family structures. I know you will 'gnash your teeth' but decreasing promiscuity is a reason FOR marriage equality. (commence teeth gnashing now)
Does none of this ring a bell here???
Well it is obvious you are missing the point - promoting monogamous sexual partners is the best way to prevent the spread of every STD whether the partners are gay or straight. You should be ringing the bell FOR marriage equality - its better for your fellow citizens and society in general.
Oshtur,
Do you believe that adultery is moral because it is legal?
The legislature legalized adultery and sodomy at the same time with the same bill.
(Repealed by 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.92.010, effective July 1, 1976).
It sounds like you believe that the legalization of sodomoy makes it moral. I disagree that making something legal makes it moral.
If the legislature made consentual sex between an adult and a child legal, I assume that you would find it moral. Obviously, some people are different and would love to pursue their happiness through a trans-generational relationship. Shouldn't absolutely everyone be allowed to pick one or more people to love and share their lives with openly and happily regardless of age according to your logic?
While I am questioning your logic, why shouldn't incest be legalized and celebrated? Surely nobody would love my daughter more than I do. If she got pregnant, we could just abort the child. I certainly would be more responsible about using birth control than some ignorant teen-ager.
Every day people are arrested for incest or having consentual sex with a minor. Obviously, there is a huge portion of society forced into the closed out of fear of persecution. Wouldn't it be better to legalize their behavior so they could openly celebrate their diversity?
People opposed to incest and pedosexuality must be hatemongers, fearmongers or pedophobes according to your philosophy!
Let's face it homosexuality is a choice of behavior, just like incest. Absolutely nobody is forced to choose either behavior. Nobody is born gay or incestuous. Behavior is a choice.
Citizens have the legitimate right to evaluate the morality of choices and decide whether those choices should be encouraged or discouraged by the government. That is why incest and pedophilia are illegal. It is also why gays are not allowed to marry.
You and I don't agree about gay marriage. There is no need for you to show your intolerance and call me names.
Do you believe that adultery is moral because it is legal?
Shoot I don't even think Christianity is ethical and I think teaching its lies to children is akin to child abuse but I recognize the right of someone else to do legal things of this nature. That's the whole point - we in this society acknowledge the right of others to lead their lives as they see fit, to tolerate it even if we don't agree with it.
If the legislature made consentual sex between an adult and a child legal, I assume that you would find it moral.
Well it is already legal - there is no lower age limit between the opposite gender spouses in a marriage in washington state as long as a state judge can be found to sign off on it.
But as to YOUR 'logic' it is ignoring that someone pursuing their happiness has to still respect that everyone else has their rights too. Can the state regulate rights, absolutely! Can they acknowledge them for some but proscribe them for others, absolutely not!
And there is where your logic falls apart - in all your scenarios the individual has a vast pool of potential spouses with only a handful proscribed. This isn't true of gay people who you are giving a possible pool of zero potential spouses since it would be 'immoral' for a gay person to marry an opposite gender spouse.
Citizens have the legitimate right to evaluate the morality of choices and decide whether those choices should be encouraged or discouraged by the government.
Actually not they don't when they are basic human rights. You can't legislate away the right of someone to belong to the Ayran nation - they have a right to a religion. You can't legislate away their right to free speech because they are a republican, and you can't legislate away their right to marry by limiting their ethical pool of potential spouses to zero.
There is no need for you to show your intolerance and call me names.
Dan what are you talking about - this is the first one of your messages I have responded to in this thread and I have called no one names throughout this thread (in case you are one also Anonymous)
I'm not the one calling for limiting some citizen's exercise of their human rights. I'm not the one who wants to prevent someone from doing something because I don't agree with it (the definition of 'intolerant'). Look in a mirror Dan, the intolerance is from your side of the reflection.
Oshtur
Shoot I don't even think Christianity is ethical and I think teaching its lies to children is akin to child abuse but I recognize the right of someone else to do legal things of this nature.
This is quite the statement . I am not sure if that is anger , sarcasm or truth .
I am not sure if that is anger , sarcasm or truth .
Truth Mike. As comforting as superstitions can be in the short term, they create intellectual stagnation and inability to think through issues rationally.
Take the topic of gays - we have seen here where logical arguments are to no avail because often the response is they think 'god' will turn against this country if equal rights are allowed. Totally irrational and refractory to common sense but no way it can even be discussed - the person takes the superstition as divine fiat and will not even consider the possibility they are wrong.
Sure the basic Christian ethical principles are sound but thinking they have a magical origin? Just sets the person up to behave and react the way the F&FN supporters do.
Sure I know lots of nice Christians and I realize that the need for religion is innate to our natures, but its still a vice and nice Christians would probably be even nicer atheists and agnostics.
oshtur, You are so full of lies you really do not deserve to be in a discussion about anything! It is a fools errand to try to talk with you. I, for one, will not continue any exchange. So sorry for your continued hard heart and blind "eyes".
7:59 AM, August 03, 2007
Seems Oshtur hit a little close to home for you. Why does the truth always enrage your type so?
Did Gary really say that people can go with the 'good and decent' in them, or continue to oppose gay marriage?
Maybe a little accidental honesty?
Mik
Oshtur, You are so full of lies you really do not deserve to be in a discussion about anything! It is a fools errand to try to talk with you. I, for one, will not continue any exchange. So sorry for your continued hard heart and blind "eyes".
Considering your understanding about the context of the 'hard heart' that's probably for the best. That was slam at people being pedantic rule followers like the Pharisee and the F&FN supporters.
Again its obvious:
gays will be with us always.
their relative numbers don't change whether persecuted or accepted.
It would be better for them to be married with someone they love rather than be in unmarried, potentially promiscuous relationships.
our country was designed to serve the individual and do what's best for them. Further it is supposed to support all it citizen's rights equally.
Knowing all this how can anyone NOT reach the conclusion it would be best to have marriage equality for all citizens regardless of the gender of their spouse?
But YOUR blind eyes can't see these simple facts because they are clouded by hatred and lies.
Mik,
Sure seems that way! I don't know how else you can read the below sentence other than as a suggestion that people should ignore the "good and decent" part of themselves and continue to oppose marriage equality.
"They will make every attempt to appeal to the good and decent part of us all as they re-engineer society and restructure the family unit from what it has been intended from the beginning, to their twenty-first century secularist version that accommodates and affirms a lifestyle that is both inconsistent with Biblical teaching and societal norms."
I mean clearly if the pro-marriage equality folks are appealing to what is "good and decent" then what is good and decent clearly must favor marriage equality, otherwise why try to appeal to it?
Oshtur said
Truth Mike. As comforting as superstitions can be in the short term, they create intellectual stagnation and inability to think through issues rationally.
Ouch . oh well . Would you say that is a view held widely among gays . I know many gays who go to church , want to be married in church . They just don't go to conservative churches but believe in a different magic I guess you would say .
Is that a vice for those people even when their religions agree more with you ?
Mick, I am using 'vice' in the context of we want or do even though rationally there is no basis for it.
Gambling is a vice because of how are brains are wired - we remember the wins and get the mental 'reward' but disregard our incremental failures. Result: people will gamble even though they know they are really losing in the long run.
Love is a vice because, well I think everyone knows how it will make you want and do things that are not in our long term best interests. Think praying mantis.
Drugs are a vice because they activate the brain's reward response directly when the individual has done nothing worthy of rewarding (other than taking the drug).
And religion is a vice because it comes from our innate neurological biases to:
1) think that authority figures know what we know - it isn't until the age of 3 or more that a child doesn't think that their parents knows what they know.
2) that things in nature have an active 'agent', that something causes everything. Such paranoia is beneficial from a survival point of view but it biases us to attribute active agents when there really is none.
3) inability to conceive of our own non-existence. We can intellectually understand that we die but we can't really grasp the concept on an instinctive level so we are biased to accept answers that avoid or reject the possibility of our own death.
And so I think religions that cater to these innate human 'vices' are themselves vices. Although some are more benign than others the problem is that they are only beneficial when they are accepted and in a pluralistic environment that's hard for some believers. If they acknowledge someone's right to not believe as they do, aren't they implicitly suggesting that their own beliefs might not be true?
But we've been through that canard before - if everyone would just every one believe what they want then religion would be benign. But look at all the F&FNers that want to make it so that everyone has to believe as they do? They even want the government to ignore those that don't believe as they do, a government designed to serve all the citizens.
No sorry, though we allow all sorts of vices from legal drugs, to watching football games, and the like, religion is just so dangerous because those addicted to this vice often won't rest until everyone at least acts like they indulge in it too. Yeah there are gays addicted to religion same as everyone else but it is still a dangerous vice none the less.
But then that's the whole point isn't it? Even though I think it is dangerous and ultimately harmful I acknowledge other's right to indulge in it. Tolerance by definition is allowing others to think, believe and do things that the tolerating individual would not. I'm not susceptible to the religion vice but that doesn't mean I don't recognize others aren't and its not my place to run their lives as long as they don't think its their place to run mine.
anon12:26
Gary is saying that they will apeal to the good and decent part of us all as in assistance to those over 62 and unmarried and those who may need certain benefits under the guise of benefits while really pushing another agenda.
Gary was saying quite some time ago that he knew the gays didn't want benefits they wanted marriage. They said no, we just want bennies. Then as we know they suddenly changed and now are saying no, we always wanted marriage. That is half true. The deception is what Gary is refering to.
I think you know that.
anon 6:08
Actually, the big lie here is by the cons. The pro marriage crowd never accepted that anything short of full equal rights as the end goal. Any other steps were acknowledged as just that - steps toward the end goal.
Also, you can 'interpret' Gary as you choose. In this instance, I'll take him at his word.
Mike
"Gary is saying that they will apeal to the good and decent part of us all as in assistance to those over 62 and unmarried and those who may need certain benefits under the guise of benefits while really pushing another agenda."
Odd that Gary didn't mention people over 62. I guess you got that from your psychic powers.
Simple fact of the matter is gays want civil marriage, a legal contract granting a plethora of rights and benefits. Not that the differentiation between marriage and it's attendent benefits matters, since you and Gary don't wnat gay and lesbian couples to have ANY legal rights.
I guess the 'deception' conspiracy is attractive to some. There's no deception - a bill for full marriage equality was presented at the same time the domestic partnership one was - the legislature went with the domestic partnership. I don't think anyone has every said that domestic partnerships were not 'half a loaf' or that it would be vastly preferred to have full marriage equality for citizens regardless of the gender of their spouse.
It is morbidly humorous - a simple contract licensed by the state that you've all been prodded into hysteria about as if somehow the state would run out of them if they were licensed. It will average out to be a 2% change AT MOST in who can license this totally secular civil contract, that's all.
If only all of the changes in state features could be limited to 2% :)
In every state from New England to New Mexico – from Florida to Washington State, gays are trying to redesign society as we have known it.
This is not about re-designing society. If anything, it's about re-designing the gay family.
For too long, gay people faced a series of bad choices: 1) Hide yourself from society and live a life in secret 2) Deny yourself and live a lonely depressed life, perhaps in a loveless faux marriage 3) Give up and commit suicide or, at best, live a life of self-destruction.
Gays who chose option 1 built their own "secret" families where they could find love and acceptance that they could not find in the greater world.
Then gays started feeling more comfortable falling in love and building families publicly, yet without the framework and acceptance straight families enjoy, such as marriage. But, with this ability to live openly, gay families started to change – they became much more like “traditional” straight families.
Why? Because living a life in secret and constant fear of being discovered is wreaks havoc on one’s well-being and state of mind. These secret lives mixed with a lack of any legal framework or society or familial support often spelled disaster for gay families and individuals – breakups, heartache, depression, promiscuity, etc. It’s a miracle any kind of family could even exist in such a situation.
With open lives, gay families are changing – starting mostly with the youngest generations, the first generations who are able to live more or less openly. We grew up respecting marriage as an institution, learning its value through our married parents, and wanting to participate in it, too, just like our straight siblings.
For today’s young gay people, marriage is not just a far-off pipe dream, but a reality.
For straight people, marriage encourages families to stick together and to remain monogamous, gives them the legal framework to protect and care for each other, and the respect of society that enables them to participate in public life. Is it really a surprise that marriage brings the same thing to gay families?
Gays are tired of being sidelined to the fringes of society. We all grow up, more or less, with the same dreams of falling in love and living a happy life. 99.9 percent of us sprung from “traditional” straight families – does anyone out there really believe gays are out to “destroy” our own families?
When we gays demand marriage, we are simply asking to participate in that dream of living a life of love and happiness, to leave behind the harmful effects of living lives in secret and in shame. We are asking for your help in helping us re-design our families to be more like yours.
Our families are already here, and we are living open “married” lives and participating in our families, schools and communities, despite the laws that delegate us to the sidelines. In many cases we are raising children or caring for our parents. Society thrives when more families stick together. Children thrive when they find unconditional love and security at home, when they can trust their parents will be there for them as one unit. Therefore, we all have an interest in helping same-sex families stick together. Legalizing marriage would do that. It would be good for all of us.
babcock_tony@yahoo.com
Oshtur I guess you are right , just never heard it described as a vice before . Faith is a belief in things unseen , one more vice for me , what the heck . ;o)
I would still debate that Christianity has done overwhelming more good then the hurt it has caused , which it has .
But the results from the 30 miles or so Christ ventured out from his home have done more good for people then bad . Human nature , not Christ has caused the hurt . Thats not a cop out , the folks who have maimed people in the name of God , would have done so in the name of Rudi , or Harry or someone else in my opinion .
Of course I am seeing this all through my John Wayne movies , American History patriotic view point , and my Faith in Jesus Christ .
But I believe we are better off as a people because of Christ . Even gays , which I know sounds like a crock , but I guess its my vice .
Countries that have not embraced religions or the freedom of them , but appear to be purely engaged in humanism beliefs have worse histories , recently anyway .
Thats not a cop out , the folks who have maimed people in the name of God , would have done so in the name of Rudi , or Harry or someone else in my opinion .
Well that's sort of my point - religion is a mental 'drug' for a neurological 'defect' we have in our perceptions as I outlined before. Humans as a class actually do better pretending they are immortal, that there is a super parent watching over them and guiding them and that everything in the world has a purpose caused by a sentient being. Whether it does good things or not wasn't my point - it is still pandering to mental misperceptions we have - makes us feel good, maybe even makes us do SOME good things, but it is still inherently irrational with all the bad that can come from that.
What's annoying about Christianity as practiced by some is that they think theirs is the only true religion. I much prefer something like Buddhism that says that are as many paths up the mountain of enlightenment as there are people.
But this is all way off topic.
OV said
I much prefer something like Buddhism that says that are as many paths up the mountain of enlightenment as there are people.
The thing about that is is that in the places in the world where their is more misery , poverty , and just a lousy way of life , Buddism is the major religion . I believe Buddism and diiferent religions have effects on culture . Obviously so , considering the debates on this blog .
With certain religions are certain results on the culture. You know about the Book of Virtues , very popular . Liberals liked it it just promoted virtues in stories and examples . Those virtues are pretty universal to all religions , but they are promoted heavily in the Old and New Testament .
I have always found humanism as trying to pick out the best of the virtues , and they change with the circumstance quite easily .
The view of Buddism in regards to results . Sort of what happens happens . The thing about humanism , is that you are totally relying on "self" and the cultural morality at the time . More deceptible to a charismatic leader . And the example of 12 men in a boat with iittle water and food comes to mind . Your philospy appears cold and ruthless to me , there is something for the Hope Of Faith and Love from God in the good and bad times that makes people become better people . Just like you became better when your partner and you came together .
Now if he was a smuck , and spending all the money , doing drugs etc , making you do things you did not want to , well that is how you are describing Christianisty . Of course being gay , I think its hard for you or me to really get into this past the obvious reasons .
Compared to logically shoving old women or young children over board is what humanism can do , for the better of the whole . Because logically they are of little help to the group and consume too much . To me that is the results of humanism , and where our culture is going . We dress it up , and make it sound nice and caring , but the caring is short term as are the good results.
Yes its a strawman point , I cheated .
Your philospy appears cold and ruthless to me
As to one that says there's only one way to avoid eternal torment? :)
Compared to logically shoving old women or young children over board is what humanism can do , for the better of the whole .
As opposed to stoning, killing people who have been 'saved' so they won't relapse (the Inquisition) Or denying citizens the right to any access to the civil contract of marriage 'for the better of the whole'?
Oh yeah humanism has a lock on that type of terribleness.
As to one that says there's only one way to avoid eternal torment? :)
Ahhh , the old fire and brimstone . I remember the first time I actually read the whole Bible , I rang the hook off the person who invited me to church .
It is a page turner .
"It is a page turner ."
All good fiction is.
And even some really good inspired truth!
Ahhh , the old fire and brimstone . I remember the first time I actually read the whole Bible , I rang the hook off the person who invited me to church .
Yes when you actually do read it you can see why some gnostic sects thought that the deity capable of such monstrous acts as the Old Testament God couldn't have anything to do with Jesus and they decided that he was actually the devil and the enslaver of mankind and it was from that entity that Jesus's death freed mankind from.
I mean would Jesus set bears upon children to tear them to shreds or tell his holy warriors to enter a conquered city, kill all the men and rape all the women? I can fully understand how people really have to work very very hard to rationalize such behaviors then with the supposed message now.
Does help explain the Inquisition though ;)
Uh, OV, you need to reread the Bible. I think you are talking about the Koran.
Actually, the Old Testament is great reading. The nation of Israel was promised health, wealth, and security if they would just follow a few simple rules, actually much more joyous than what the other countries around them were doing as far as religious ceremonies, and God NEVER had them actually sacrifice any of their people to him, as was the custom in Canaan and other nations.
But they didn't do it. They broke that covenant with God. So God made a New Covenant with the people of the world. If we will only come to Him as He instructed through His Son, Jesus Christ, God would change our hearts to WANT to follow Him and give us the strength to do it, because we have demonstrated time and again that we could not follow Him totally in our own strength.
The Bible really is a great source of knowledge and strength through Jesus Christ.
Uh, OV, you need to reread the Bible. I think you are talking about the Koran.
No, you really need to read your bible at all:
2 Kings 2:24 When he turned around and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. Then two she-bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys.
And is irrelevant - whether you can selectively ignore the monstrous acts of the Old Testament Jehovah some Gnostics did not your personal defense of the acts not withstanding.
Post a Comment
<< Home