Re: [luv-talk] Libs/Labs and other politics, statistics and myths
On Fri, November 7, 2014 9:06 pm, Michael Scott wrote:
If you are a biblical Christian, it is quite clear what Christians believe about same sex relationships and about marriage.
Like I said, you are thoroughly entitled to your religious beliefs. Just don't impose them on other people. Don't believe in same-sex marriage? Fine, don't have one.
There are Baptists and there are "Baptists".
Secular Baptism is very much a result of the persecution that Baptists suffered under the Christian governments not of their denomination.
To tell me that "as a Christian" is not a legitimate claim is to misunderstand what a Christian is. What is a "secular Christian"? A Christian is one who believes and trusts in Jesus Christ. A "secular Christian" just doesn't make sense.
Of course it does, and that is why the overwhelming majority of Christians are secularists as well. A secular position is not an anti-religious one. It stands for the freedom of religion and the freedom from religion. It's about civil administrations taking a position of religious agnosticism; providing neither opposition nor benefit to religious institutions and treating them the same as any other group. It simple means that recognition that secular governance on Earth is based on evidence available to all, and is thus different to the eternal governance of the heavens.
Do we have to get into this argument again, just because Russell chooses to bring it up again?
I'm choosing to bring it up as well, as are you apparently. -- Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), GradCertTerAdEd (Murdoch), GradCertPM, MBA (Tech Mngmnt) (Chifley) mobile: 0432 255 208 RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 9:14 PM, Lev Lafayette <lev@levlafayette.com> wrote:
On Fri, November 7, 2014 9:06 pm, Michael Scott wrote:
If you are a biblical Christian, it is quite clear what Christians believe about same sex relationships and about marriage.
Like I said, you are thoroughly entitled to your religious beliefs. Just don't impose them on other people. Don't believe in same-sex marriage? Fine, don't have one.
I haven't and don't intend to impose anything on anyone. It's same sex activists wanting to impose their beliefs on what already exists and change the definition of marriage. Whether I choose to "have one" or not is not the issue. GLBT activists want to change the definition of marriage. That's IMPOSING your beliefs on others, not the other way around.
There are Baptists and there are "Baptists".
Secular Baptism is very much a result of the persecution that Baptists suffered under the Christian governments not of their denomination.
They're either secular or they're Baptist. They can't be both.
To tell me that "as a Christian" is not a legitimate claim is to misunderstand what a Christian is. What is a "secular Christian"? A Christian is one who believes and trusts in Jesus Christ. A "secular Christian" just doesn't make sense.
Of course it does, and that is why the overwhelming majority of Christians are secularists as well. A secular position is not an anti-religious one. It stands for the freedom of religion and the freedom from religion. It's about civil administrations taking a position of religious agnosticism; providing neither opposition nor benefit to religious institutions and treating them the same as any other group.
Again, they're either Christian or they're not. You can't be both Christian and secular. You either believe in, trust and follow Jesus Christ or you don't.
It simple means that recognition that secular governance on Earth is based on evidence available to all, and is thus different to the eternal governance of the heavens.
That works for those who want to say they're Christian, but you don't have
to read much of the Bible to know that it doesn't work like that.
Do we have to get into this argument again, just because Russell chooses
to bring it up again?
I'm choosing to bring it up as well, as are you apparently.
No, I'm happy to tell it like it is, but the weight of numbers doesn't make either of you right. This is irrelevant to the original discussion but Russell decided to bring it up from nowhere, for his own purposes. Now you're happy to continue an irrelevant discussion for your own purposes. That's sad.
-- Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), GradCertTerAdEd (Murdoch), GradCertPM, MBA (Tech Mngmnt) (Chifley) mobile: 0432 255 208 RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
_______________________________________________ luv-talk mailing list luv-talk@luv.asn.au http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-talk
On Fri, November 7, 2014 9:31 pm, Michael Scott wrote:
I haven't and don't intend to impose anything on anyone. It's same sex activists wanting to impose their beliefs on what already exists and change the definition of marriage. Whether I choose to "have one" or not is not the issue. GLBT activists want to change the definition of marriage. That's IMPOSING your beliefs on others, not the other way around.
Do you want to impose your religious beliefs on others? You don't, for religious reasons, support same-sex marriage. Have you therefore concluded that everyone else has to live under that as well, even though it doesn't effect you? The definition of marriage is not a static thing, and it is not owned by any religious authority. The age when marriage was considered acceptable has changed. Race restrictions once existed. As did religious restrictions as well, for that matter. So therefore the definition is mutuable. In a modern society we're pretty much settled on the opinion that as long as it's between consenting adults, it's none of our business in a legal sense.
They're either secular or they're Baptist. They can't be both.
Says you, but that just tells me that you don't know what the word 'secular' means. Secular is just the world available to all of us, which we currently live in whether they are atheist, pagan, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, etc. and is independent of their religious beliefs. Some secularists have a concept of the otherworldly, others do not. I have a 'funny' story about this actually. It involves an older Jewish friend of mine, who some people might know, named Halina. She was at a social function and a person giving the speech sat at her table and started speaking in Hebrew. She said that she didn't understand Hebrew, so he started speaking in Yiddish. She apologised and said that she hadn't spoken much Yiddish since she was a child. He asked what synagogue she went to. She said she didn't really go to synagogue, her family were secular Jews. "Secular Jews!", he mocked. "There is no such thing. It's an oxymoron.". He ranted for a while on the issue and concluded with the damning line "By what right do you call yourself a Jew?" With remarkable modesty, she is not prone to making too much an issue of the matter, but this was an exception. She stared him straight in the face and said: "I think six years in Hitler's death camps entitles me to that right". You see, her family in Poland had been rounded up for being Jewish in 1939. She was 16 at the time when she was incarcerated at Auschwitz II-Birkenau and towards the end of the war at Stutthof. These weren't 'just' concentration camps; they were extermination camps. Somehow she survived. So, are you going to look her in the eye and tell her too that she's "not really" a Jew as well?
Again, they're either Christian or they're not. You can't be both Christian and secular. You either believe in, trust and follow Jesus Christ or you don't.
Again you are displaying that you simply don't know what secularism is, and it would be helpful if you educated yourself on the matter. Secularism doesn't mean that you give up trusting and following Jesus if you want to. What it does mean is that you don't apply your version of Christian laws onto people who are not interested in them. Here is what George Holyoake, the person who coined the term "secularism" in 1851 had to say on the matter: "Secularism is not an argument against Christianity, it is one independent of it. It does not question the pretensions of Christianity; it advances others. Secularism does not say there is no light or guidance elsewhere, but maintains that there is light and guidance in secular truth, whose conditions and sanctions exist independently, and act forever. Secular knowledge is manifestly that kind of knowledge which is founded in this life, which relates to the conduct of this life, conduces to the welfare of this life, and is capable of being tested by the experience of this life." If you would like some further discussion on the matter you may wish to read my presentation to the Humanist Society on the issue. http://isocracy.org/node/168
That's sad.
I'd be saddened if you are so insecure in your faith that you believe that you must impose by law on everyone else. If you *don't* believe in imposing it by law on others then guess what? You're a secularist! -- Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), GradCertTerAdEd (Murdoch), GradCertPM, MBA (Tech Mngmnt) (Chifley) mobile: 0432 255 208 RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
Lev Lafayette wrote:
The definition of marriage is not a static thing, and it is not owned by any religious authority. The age when marriage was considered acceptable has changed. Race restrictions once existed. As did religious restrictions as well, for that matter. So therefore the definition is mutuable.
In a modern society we're pretty much settled on the opinion that as long as it's between consenting adults, it's none of our business in a legal sense.
I remember asking once: "why does anyone even care? Unless you're some kinda wacky theist, it's totally irrelevant." And they told me that a bunch of old legislation is still running around, so e.g. in some places you cannot adopt a child unless you're officially Married™, and a bunch of tax stuff works differently. So AFAICT the quick-and-dirty fix is to pick a new word, like "froobznargl", define it secularly and without prejudice, then do a regexp replacement across all the legislation to switch to that term. That way, the credulous pre-Enlightenment types can continue to define "marriage" however they want, and it won't affect anyone outside their cults. Since the state is (at least nominally) secular, that won't be contentious AT ALL.
On Fri, November 7, 2014 10:31 pm, Trent W. Buck wrote:
That way, the credulous pre-Enlightenment types can continue to define "marriage" however they want, and it won't affect anyone outside their cults.
Since the state is (at least nominally) secular, that won't be contentious AT ALL.
Sure, that would work. If the government got out of the marriage business altogether, provided recognition to civil unions, and 'marriages' could be up to individual establishments to determine what rules they apply. c..f, http://isocracy.org/node/15 -- Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), GradCertTerAdEd (Murdoch), GradCertPM, MBA (Tech Mngmnt) (Chifley) mobile: 0432 255 208 RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
Lev, You missed On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 10:10 PM, Lev Lafayette <lev@levlafayette.com> wrote:
On Fri, November 7, 2014 9:31 pm, Michael Scott wrote:
I haven't and don't intend to impose anything on anyone. It's same sex activists wanting to impose their beliefs on what already exists and change the definition of marriage. Whether I choose to "have one" or not is not the issue. GLBT activists want to change the definition of marriage. That's IMPOSING your beliefs on others, not the other way around.
Do you want to impose your religious beliefs on others? You don't, for religious reasons, support same-sex marriage. Have you therefore concluded that everyone else has to live under that as well, even though it doesn't effect you?
No, I just don't believe that the definition of marriage should be changed so that same sex couples can have the same legal rights, which is what they're really after. Otherwise they're after imposing their beliefs on others. I have absolutely no problem with same sex couples having the same legal rights as heterosexual/married couples. What I don't want is the legal definition of marriage being changed.
The definition of marriage is not a static thing, and it is not owned by any religious authority. The age when marriage was considered acceptable has changed. Race restrictions once existed. As did religious restrictions as well, for that matter. So therefore the definition is mutuable.
I don't know what that word, mutuable, is, but the definition of marriage is actually biblical.
In a modern society we're pretty much settled on the opinion that as long as it's between consenting adults, it's none of our business in a legal sense.
Again, no problem with same sex couples having the same legal rights.
They're either secular or they're Baptist. They can't be both.
Says you, but that just tells me that you don't know what the word 'secular' means. Secular is just the world available to all of us, which we currently live in whether they are atheist, pagan, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, etc. and is independent of their religious beliefs. Some secularists have a concept of the otherworldly, others do not.
Whatever they have a "concept of", it's either Biblical or it's not.
I have a 'funny' story about this actually. It involves an older Jewish friend of mine, who some people might know, named Halina. She was at a social function and a person giving the speech sat at her table and started speaking in Hebrew. She said that she didn't understand Hebrew, so he started speaking in Yiddish. She apologised and said that she hadn't spoken much Yiddish since she was a child. He asked what synagogue she went to. She said she didn't really go to synagogue, her family were secular Jews.
"Secular Jews!", he mocked. "There is no such thing. It's an oxymoron.". He ranted for a while on the issue and concluded with the damning line "By what right do you call yourself a Jew?"
With remarkable modesty, she is not prone to making too much an issue of the matter, but this was an exception. She stared him straight in the face and said: "I think six years in Hitler's death camps entitles me to that right".
You see, her family in Poland had been rounded up for being Jewish in 1939. She was 16 at the time when she was incarcerated at Auschwitz II-Birkenau and towards the end of the war at Stutthof. These weren't 'just' concentration camps; they were extermination camps. Somehow she survived.
So, are you going to look her in the eye and tell her too that she's "not really" a Jew as well?
Do you know anything about Jewish and Christian background. Of course if she's of Jewish heritage she's Jewish. I'd never deny that of her. That has nothing to do with her religious beliefs.
Again, they're either Christian or they're not. You can't be both Christian and secular. You either believe in, trust and follow Jesus Christ or you don't.
Again you are displaying that you simply don't know what secularism is, and it would be helpful if you educated yourself on the matter. Secularism doesn't mean that you give up trusting and following Jesus if you want to. What it does mean is that you don't apply your version of Christian laws onto people who are not interested in them.
No, it shows that YOU simply don't know what Christianity is.
It's not about Christian "laws". There are 2 commandments. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your mind and all your soul and all your strength. And Love your neighbour as yourself.
-- Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), GradCertTerAdEd (Murdoch), GradCertPM, MBA (Tech Mngmnt) (Chifley) mobile: 0432 255 208 RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
_______________________________________________ luv-talk mailing list luv-talk@luv.asn.au http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-talk
On Fri, 7 Nov 2014, Michael Scott <luv@inoz.net> wrote:
No, I just don't believe that the definition of marriage should be changed so that same sex couples can have the same legal rights, which is what they're really after. Otherwise they're after imposing their beliefs on others. I have absolutely no problem with same sex couples having the same legal rights as heterosexual/married couples. What I don't want is the legal definition of marriage being changed.
When people who would never willingly associate with you get married it isn't imposing on you in any way. When you want to use the law to prevent them from getting married you are imposing your beliefs on them. If you read the Bible then you will see many references to Jesus being nice to a variety of marginalised groups, Samaritans, Lepers, tax collectors, and more. If Jesus was around today I don't think he would be discriminating against GLBT people. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
participants (5)
-
hannah commodore -
Lev Lafayette -
Michael Scott -
Russell Coker -
Trent W. Buck