Marriage

[Belk]

So apparently you've drifted away from the church that your German forefathers believed in?

Because they followed the Bible and did not believe in gay marriage. Never would have even thought about it actually.

M-Bob

I know right? Do you know how few churches burn women alive for being a witch? It is absolutely disgusting that people no longer follow the clear teachings of the bible. It is not like anyone has ever gotten the bible wrong before.

 

[Theo Barnsley]

Actually, we know very well what the Lord wants. Isn't that the purpose of the Bible?

If we are supposed to know what the Lord wants from the bible, why does everybody interpret it differently, which has lead to thousands of different sects of Christianity, not to mention all the jewish sects, mormonism, & islam. It seems the bible has caused lots of confusion!

 

[Jon Osterman]

I think this depends on the church, the community, and the couple. If the couple has been openly gay and living in the church community freely and without conflict, it would be hypocritical to deny them a ceremony before God to formalise their relationship. If being gay is a problem for them in that church community, it should be sorted out long before they get to the stage of asking the church to marry them, either by them fitting in with the church's teachings (so no gay marriage) or finding a more appropriate church.

If a gay couple, who have been a member of the church community, request a gay marriage ceremony and are denied, both them and the church have been lacking in their interaction. By the time it gets to the marriage request you have left it far too late.

Similarly though, I think churches should refuse to marry heterosexual couples who have not been long term members of their community and/or not formed a relationship with that community.

 

[bhsmte]

If we are supposed to know what the Lord wants from the bible, why does everybody interpret it differently, which has lead to thousands of different sects of Christianity, not to mention all the jewish sects, mormonism, & islam. It seems the bible has caused lots of confusion!

Simple, each person interprets in a way that suits them.

 

[SwordmanJr]

Should gay/lesbian marriage be preformed by the church

There is a vast difference between TRUE marriage as God defined it once and for all in Genesis 2, and all the other nonsense that goes on within culture, government and religion. The Lord never, at any time, relinquished over to mankind, governments or churchianity organizations His sole authority over marriage and its definition.

Jr.

 

[stevil]

Moreover marriage is performed by God who is joining two people together not by people .

Marriage is a legal construct. As long as people meet the legal criteria, e.g. consenting adults, not immediately related, not already married, intend to live together and interact as a family. As long as they sign the documentation and have a witness and pay the processing fee then that is all that is required. In fact, in democratic free countries the politicians and law enforcers are obligated to accept and honor the contract.

The unnecessary things:
exchange of vows
wedding ceremony
religious representation
exchange of rings
any mention of any gods

I think it is quite quaint how various religious organisations perform their special wedding ceremonies. They inject their traditions and may also include their own set of restrictive rules.
The difference between churches and government with regards to marriage is this:
1. Churches aren't necessary and don't provide meaningful governance (in a legal sense), and don't provide any meaningful value towards the legally binding contract. Where-as government is needed to accept and process the legal contract.
2. Churches are not required to perform their quaint traditions for those wanting to get married. i.e. the Churches are well within their rights to reject a request to perform a ceremony even if those seeking to get married fulfill all the legal requirements. Whereas government is legally obligated to accept wedding contracts that meet the legal conditions.

In saying all that, I am all for religious organisations including a certification process. (It wouldn't even have to be religious organisation as they are nothing special, any organisation could construct a certification process and develop some gestures, rituals and traditions and restrictions)
Religious people who are proud of their religious organisation and their religious wedding rites, can gain a certification from their organisation and can boast that not only are they married, but they are <organisation> certified married. e.g. Catholic certified married as opposed to simply being married.

What this means is that the religious folk can keep guard of their own rules about who can and can't be certified married by their organisation (They can continue with their exclusive club), but have no say as to the rules of legal marriage governed by the secular governing legal body (which is an inclusive body).

 

[SwordmanJr]

Marriage is a legal construct.

Clarification: SOCIAL marriage is a legal construct.

TRUE marriage was defined by God in Genesis 2. The Lord at no time ever relinquished His sole authority over marriage and its definition to mankind. That's why many people who have that government certificate/license for their so-called "marriage" are still living in fornication and/or adultery. Anything outside God's definition for marriage is therefore fornication and/or adultery. Legal divorce and remarriage is serialized polygamy, which defines more than 50% of the portion of the American adult population right now who has ever been married.

There's a real eye-opener for many, many people, huh?

As long as people meet the legal criteria, e.g. consenting adults, not immediately related, not already married, intend to live together and interact as a family. As long as they sign the documentation and have a witness and pay the processing fee then that is all that is required. In fact, in democratic free countries the politicians and law enforcers are obligated to accept and honor the contract.

That may be....where the legal contract is concerned. If they're having sex together, and they do not meet God's definition for marriage, it is sin. It is written that fornicators and adulterers will not enter into Heaven. Abraham had multiple wives up the point he died, and He is in Heaven because his relationship with his wives met the criteria God set forth for marriage. Lots or churchianity religionists out there will scream like wounded banshees at this, but the facts are the facts, regardless of modern, cultural/religious sensibilities.

1. Churches aren't necessary and don't provide meaningful governance (in a legal sense), and don't provide any meaningful value towards the legally binding contract. Where-as government is needed to accept and process the legal contract.

Institutional church organization are, by their very nature, totally unnecessary....in totality They themselves are a legal construct that stands or falls on the basis of money. When the money dries up, so goes the organization and all its hirelings. Dare the vatican cease to receive the constant influx of money from all its slave organizations around the world, and it would shrivel up and die like all the others.

The idea that TRUE Christians must have a communal facility, and support hirelings to function within the facility, that's a false assumption. The autonomy of most churchinaity organizations is the very reason the Church in each city and locale is fractured and schismatic.....lacking the unity each local Church is supposed to live out among all local believers. This is a tragic loss, having been replaced by institutional identity. This is a sick state of being.

The Church populates some of the pews and chairs within churches. The rest are bound for Hell, just like D. James Kennedy stated.

(It wouldn't even have to be religious organisation as they are nothing special,...

Well said.

Religious people who are proud of their religious organisation and their religious wedding rites, can gain a certification from their organisation and can boast that not only are they married, but they are <organisation> certified married. e.g. Catholic certified married as opposed to simply being married.

Whoopti-doo.... How meaningless indeed.

What this means is that the religious folk can keep guard of their own rules about who can and can't be certified married by their organisation (They can continue with their exclusive club), but have no say as to the rules of legal marriage governed by the secular governing legal body (which is an inclusive body).

Oh, don't worry. The institutional church organizations will one day be forced to be more inclusive of the perverse legal system over them, or they go to prison. If they desire to stay in business, they will bow their knees to Molech, or cease to possess the governmental endorsement to exist as an organized body.

Jr.

 

[Freodin]

Clarification: SOCIAL marriage is a legal construct.

TRUE marriage was defined by God in Genesis 2.

I completely agree.

That's the reason why only those men who had his wifes created for them from their own ribs are TRULY married.

All others are just fakers.

 

[stevil]

Clarification: SOCIAL marriage is a legal construct.

TRUE marriage was defined by God in Genesis 2. The Lord at no time ever relinquished His sole authority over marriage and its definition to mankind. That's why many people who have that government certificate/license for their so-called "marriage" are still living in fornication and/or adultery. Anything outside God's definition for marriage is therefore fornication and/or adultery. Legal divorce and remarriage is serialized polygamy, which defines more than 50% of the portion of the American adult population right now who has ever been married.

There's a real eye-opener for many, many people, huh?

I don't believe in gods nor the bible.
I take it that human customs and traditions are the creation of humans. So the origin of marriage was probably originated by society leaders, probably in recognition that it is tough work to bring up babies and tough work is made easier by two parents rather than just the one. Also the recognition that both parents are the cause of the baby's existence.
But of course I am wildly speculating here.

Your belief that a god holds authority over marriage obviously is a very different "marriage" construct from that governed by country leaders, written into law (created by country leaders) and supported/promoted by the UN - refer to article 16 of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The government defined ones are tangible. They are documented into law and enforced by police and the judicial system. There are very real consequences that we can observe, e.g. child custody, property rights, and others.

Your beliefs aren't backed up by anything tangible.
Adultery is a human construct and in some countries has legal consequences, be that some kind of punishment or grounds for divorce or a factor taken into account when deciding the disbursement of relationship property. These things are real and we can observe their consequences.

With your belief of a god seeing these things as "fornication and/or adultery" or "serialized polygamy", well this is where your beliefs differ from the actual laws governing countries.
Noone can visibly see the consequences of your beliefs other than they can hear you telling them what your beliefs are. You can proclaim to know what your god thinks about things and you can promote that all you want, but it does not have a bearing on the real tangible laws enforced in countries.

That may be....where the legal contract is concerned. If they're having sex together, and they do not meet God's definition for marriage, it is sin.

I do not believe in sin

It is written that fornicators and adulterers will not enter into Heaven.

I do not believe in heaven

Abraham had multiple wives up the point he died, and He is in Heaven because his relationship with his wives met the criteria God set forth for marriage.

I do not believe the Abraham you speak of is actually in a heaven

Lots or churchianity religionists out there will scream like wounded banshees at this, but the facts are the facts, regardless of modern, cultural/religious sensibilities.

How do you come to decide on whether something is a fact?

Institutional church organization are, by their very nature, totally unnecessary....in totality They themselves are a legal construct that stands or falls on the basis of money.

If you don't belong to a religious organisation then you are taking on only your own council. You become your own ministry, a ministry of one. If you promote your own individual personal beliefs then you are adding to the noise that is of thousands if not millions of disparate voices each with their own vision of their belief system, each conflicting with each other, each proclaiming in passionate detail what god thinks, what god wants, and how to go about pleasing this god in order to gain entry to a heaven that noone has ever seen. It becomes a confusing cacophony.

The idea that TRUE Christians must have a communal facility, and support hirelings to function within the facility, that's a false assumption.

I find it a bit rich when a person claims to know what a true Christian is.
Who is the authority on that matter? You?

Oh, don't worry. The institutional church organizations will one day be forced to be more inclusive of the perverse legal system over them, or they go to prison. If they desire to stay in business, they will bow their knees to Molech, or cease to possess the governmental endorsement to exist as an organized body.

I don't think that legal imposition on churches will be their downfall. Countries are trying very hard to allow the population to have autonomy and make their own choices.
Goverments get involved when people and groups don't play nicely together such as exhibiting discrimination. Organisations seem to be allowed to discriminate within, but not when they are interacting with society as a whole.
You provide a public service, then you are not allowed to discriminate.

I am hoping that the downfall of religion will be when society as whole recognise the ridiculous nature of discrimination within those exclusive organisations and simply decide not to join them, thus their ever dwindling participation rates and affiliations.

 

[SwordmanJr]

I don't believe in gods nor the bible.

Then discussion is futile, for I cannot force a square peg through a round hole (so to speak) when talking with those who believe everything came from nothing.

Jr.

 

[stevil]

Then discussion is futile, for I cannot force a square peg through a round hole (so to speak) when talking with those who believe everything came from nothing.

Why do you participate in the general Discussion and Debate section if you are not interested in dialogging with non Christians?
Most of this forum is Christians only. Perhaps you ought to stick to those parts of the site.


BTW, Being atheist doesn't mean that a person has to believe that everything came from nothing.
It is quite reasonable for atheists not to have the answer for everything and nothing.

 

[SwordmanJr]

Why do you participate in the general Discussion and Debate section if you are not interested in dialogging with non Christians?
Most of this forum is Christians only. Perhaps you ought to stick to those parts of the site.


BTW, Being atheist doesn't mean that a person has to believe that everything came from nothing.
It is quite reasonable for atheists not to have the answer for everything and nothing.

Someone who says outright that my beliefs are based on nothing tangible has already written off any meaningful discussion. What's left when you set the bar too high for anyone to say anything that would ever convince you? What's the use?

Like I was told earlier today by someone in here, choose your battles. You've already closed down discussion before it ever started.

Ta ta.

Jr.

 

[Strathos]

A church could choose to do so, but they could also choose not to do so.

BTW, discussion of this topic is banned on this forum.

 

[stevil]

Someone who says outright that my beliefs are based on nothing tangible has already written off any meaningful discussion. What's left when you set the bar too high for anyone to say anything that would ever convince you? What's the use?

Convince me of what?

I'm trying to have an open conversation with you, not trying to win an argument or convince you or something.

When I speak of "tangible", I'm meaning consequences that we can see and can experience (in this life) and can observe others experiencing.

Our government defined marriage is something tangible, people are getting marriage certificates, they are going through the process of divorce, they are sharing childcare responsibilities and sharing relationship property. These are all tangible things.

When I refer to your stated belief in marriage being originated from your god and being governed by your god, and your god deeming unmarried relations being "fornication and/or adultery" or "serialized polygamy".

Well, I deem these as intangible because I can't see this, I can't see the consequences. I can't see that your god is doing any governance over marriage, I can't see that there are any consequence with regards to being married (in the opinion of your believed god) or not married (in the opinion of your believed god). I can't see that people are sinning (how can I test for that? How can I know that they are sinning or are being punished or experiencing some consequence of sin?)

Like I was told earlier today by someone in here, choose your battles. You've already closed down discussion before it ever started.

Ta ta.

Jr.

I'm not trying to have any battle with you. All I'm doing is expressing my own viewpoint, I recognise my view is different from yours. I'm not telling you I am right and you are wrong, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm just stating my own personal viewpoint. I hope I'm not offending you by expressing a viewpoint which is different to yours. And I didn't mean to offend you by claiming that your belief is "intangible", it wasn't mean as an insult or a "winning" point. I personally find it interesting to hear your own viewpoint as I find people interesting and especially I find the diverse viewpoints that each different person has as being interesting. But we don't need to win people over to our way of thinking.
Conversation can be between different people just expressing their own differing viewpoints. (its not an argument if we respect each other and don't try to say that each other is wrong)

 

[SwordmanJr]

Convince me of what?

I'm trying to have an open conversation with you, not trying to win an argument or convince you or something.

When I speak of "tangible", I'm meaning consequences that we can see and can experience (in this life) and can observe others experiencing.

Exactly. You already wrote off any possibility of you accepting anything I would offer as tangible evidence, so what's the use?

Our government defined marriage is something tangible, people are getting marriage certificates, they are going through the process of divorce, they are sharing childcare responsibilities and sharing relationship property. These are all tangible things.

And yet that one pesky word, "marriage" remains the intangible (because it's an intangible concept behind the legal licensing/certificate) you do seem to believe in. Imagine that....

When I refer to your stated belief in marriage being originated from your god and being governed by your god, and your god deeming unmarried relations being "fornication and/or adultery" or "serialized polygamy".

You can pretend that you don't believe in the intangible, and yet you admit the opposite without realizing it.

The bottom line is this: If you are right that there is no God, then neither of us has anything to worry about as we cease to exist at the point of death. If there is a God, then you have everything to lose. That's an old observation, but its antiquity doesn't melt away because of time or repeated mention.

Well, I deem these as intangible because I can't see this, I can't see the consequences.

You can't see the speeding ticket until after you break the law. You can't taste the flavor of the ice cream until you have it in your mouth. So what? Let's dispense with the obvious, and admit that the consequences mentioned in the Bible will not become real to you until the APPOINTED time. Yammering about what you can and cannot see throughout your life until this moment is meaningless nonsense.

What kind of a god would you accept, whether he established the definition of marriage or not? If that god appeared to you simply because you demanded it, that is a god subject to your personal whims. But let's look at that more closely, shall we? What kind of a being is it that is subject to you? A dog may or may not come to you when you call out for it. Dare you command a cockroach to jump into a flame against its instinct, and it won't do it. So, the god you appear to find acceptable to you is one that is lower than a cockroach.

Sovereignty means that God is not subject to your personal demands for revealing Himself to you. He is not held to any human standard for evidence and revelation, but rather, humans are held to His standards, and He has sovereignly chosen to hold back his judgment for your sins until AFTER you die and stand before Him in judgment. He also has chosen to NOT appear before your eyes to prove His existence. He has already said that all of nature around us is ample evidence, and you have chosen to disregard the obvious. What more can anyone say when you have set the bar above the limits God has set for evidence? It's a futile discussion. It will never go anywhere.

You are left, therefore, with believing everything came from nothing. Even cosmologists admit the universe had a beginning, unless you've chosen to follow after one of those other, more strange belief systems, like the earth sitting on the backs of four elephants....

I can't see that your god is doing any governance over marriage, I can't see that there are any consequence with regards to being married (in the opinion of your believed god) or not married (in the opinion of your believed god). I can't see that people are sinning (how can I test for that? How can I know that they are sinning or are being punished or experiencing some consequence of sin?)

So, because your sight and perceptions are deprived of the evidence you subjectively demand as to what you will accept for proof, your subjective conclusion is logically flawed. That's the fallacy of the sensory. Have you not heard of "dark matter," and how that.....stuff cannot be seen nor detected, and yet it is the mass that cosmologists have stated is what holds galaxies together since the visible mass of galaxies simply is not enough by itself to provide the gravitational force to hold galaxies in their spirals?

You seem to enjoy beating yourself up with what you can't see nor perceptively detect with your senses. Dude, suffice it to say that you will, after you die, become painfully aware of that which is more real than what you right now can sense and see. Your rebellion against God is based upon criteria many, many men before you have already harangued about. There's nothing new about it, and God has still chosen to not yet appear in the sky above us until HE sovereignly chooses to do so, regardless of the petty demands of His creation. You don't like that. So what?

We're not in battle with each other here. I'm just pointing out that your non-acceptance of the fact that God defined marriage for us, a definition you refuse to accept....so what? The consequences of your beliefs are what you will be forced into, no matter what rationale you may offer as to why you chose to not believe. You're the pot demanding of the potter an explanation as to why He has refused to give to you what YOU want. How petty and pathetic. Suffice it to say that you will be held responsible for the way you live your life, whether you accept that fact or not. It's of no consequence to me or anyone else here. Your blood is on your own head.

Rock on, dude. Rock on with living your life the way you want. That's the freedom the Almighty has given to all mankind.....except those men living under the dictatorships of other evil men. But, hey, in much of the world, many can do as they please. Your abuse of the freedom you have will prove to have been your own undoing. You alone will answer for that.

I'm not trying to have any battle with you.

And I appreciate that.

All I'm doing is expressing my own viewpoint, I recognise my view is different from yours.

I respect that.

I'm not telling you I am right and you are wrong, I'm not trying to convince you of anything.

In the end, it will matter as to who was right and who was wrong. Ultimately, what matters the most, is that God is right, and we ALL are wrong in many ways. The difference is where we placed our trust and faith. I respect the freedom you have to believe as you wish. Like I said, rock on. I have given you ample warning, but without malice. My hand is on your shoulder in total support of the freedom you are privileged to exercise. You choose to disregard the evidence of God's existence all around you, but are yet therefore forced to try and explain it all under the guise of the natural, which cannot be done. Rock on, dude. Rock on.

I'm just stating my own personal viewpoint. I hope I'm not offending you by expressing a viewpoint which is different to yours.

Not at all. I simply was admitting my defeat in any ability to convince you when you automatically write me off as having nothing tangible enough to convince you. That's like shooting holes through a truck engine with a .60 caliber machine gun with armor piercing ammo, and then demanding I get it started for you.

No offense taken, my friend. I just know when to walk away. I don't mind hearing about why you don't believe what I believe. What I wonder is, what value is there in discussion that you have already relegated into the realm of the impossible? Is there a way of having meaningful dialogue when the smoking gun in your hand is still scalding hot from shooting down the other's position?

Here's an interesting concept for you: What is intangible to you is not always so intangible to everyone else. Your experiences and my experiences are not the same. I have experienced tangibility you have not, and I'm powerless to make those things tangible to you. See? I'm defeated in that, and I have no way to bring to your sensory perceptions the tangibles I have experienced. Where, then, do we go from there? You and I are not like those highly impressionable five and six year old children in public schools who are being indoctrinated into mental illnesses by being told by their evil, wicked teachers that, although they may have been born with what's between their legs, they may be the opposite gender inside. Neither of us are any longer impressionable at that level. We now are responsible for our choices. That means everything when we enter eternity.

I like creating my music, and I am content with that. My music is intangible, and yet it brings joy and peace to lots of people. Some hate it, others like it. Some even refuse to admit that it's music. Rock on, my friend. Rock on.

Jr.

 

[stevil]

Exactly. You already wrote off any possibility of you accepting anything I would offer as tangible evidence, so what's the use?

I didn't know we where trying to convince each other of anything.
I didn't think it would be contentious to state that a claim of a god's authority over marriage is an intangible claim.

And yet that one pesky word, "marriage" remains the intangible (because it's an intangible concept behind the legal licensing/certificate) you do seem to believe in. Imagine that....

Marriage is a made up concept but it is rooted in reality. The fact that a couple can make children and the fact that children are dependant for many years and so the parents have a vested interest to remain together and bring up the kids. The legal marriage concept protects the children's interests and in many cases also protects the mother, who often forgoes her career to take care of the kids. Marriage as a concept is deemed important by human nature and the society we live in. It is made tangible by our governments.
The religious concept of marriage for me, has no consequence. Being non religious, it doesn't impact me, my only concern is the legal definition as that impacts my life in tangible ways.

The bottom line is this: If you are right that there is no God, then neither of us has anything to worry about as we cease to exist at the point of death. If there is a God, then you have everything to lose.

I don't want to get into a debate with you on whether gods exist or not. I don't want to prove to you that gods don't exist. I know that you have not proof in the existence of your god.
I am ok with you believing in your god, I have no interest in convincing you otherwise.

Pascal's wager is meaningless to me. I refuse to live my life by fear. I will not believe in something for which there is absolutely no evidence for.

You can't see the speeding ticket until after you break the law.

This isn't a valid analogy. We do know the traffic officers give out speeding tickets. We know our government has these laws and we know people are forced to pay the consequences. These are observed, we know where these come from, we know who enforces them, we see the police, we see the court houses, we see the tickets and we see the dent on our bank accounts.

If all you are interested in, in conversation with me is to convince me of the existence of your god, then yes you are wasting both of our time.

Let's dispense with the obvious, and admit that the consequences mentioned in the Bible will not become real to you until the APPOINTED time.

I have not read the bible. It is of no interest or relevance to me. I don't believe in life after death. There are no personal consequences upon me after death.

What kind of a god would you accept

I see no value in gods. I don't even know what the definition of one is.
If it is, the ability to defy the laws of physics then I would be quite fascinated by one. It would be worth observing until the novelty wore off and I got bored with it.

If that god appeared to you simply because you demanded it, that is a god subject to your personal whims. But let's look at that more closely, shall we? What kind of a being is it that is subject to you? A dog may or may not come to you when you call out for it. Dare you command a cockroach to jump into a flame against its instinct, and it won't do it. So, the god you appear to find acceptable to you is one that is lower than a cockroach.

I'm not a person that seeks control of others.

Sovereignty means that God is not subject to your personal demands for revealing Himself to you.

I am not demanding any of the gods to reveal themselves to me.

He has already said that all of nature around us is ample evidence, and you have chosen to disregard the obvious.

Existence of reality is not evidence of gods or even your specific god.

What more can anyone say when you have set the bar above the limits God has set for evidence? It's a futile discussion. It will never go anywhere.

I have never seen a god claim to be formed in such a way that leads to objective evaluation. So yes, I agree, a debate as to the existence of gods is pointless until a sufficient claim is first put forth.

You are left, therefore, with believing everything came from nothing.

That is a strawman, and will hold you back with regards to engaging openly and honestly with atheists.

Even cosmologists admit the universe had a beginning

That is overly simplistic and misleading.
Cosmologists do not claim that there was nothing prior to the big bang.

So, because your sight and perceptions are deprived of the evidence you subjectively demand as to what you will accept for proof, your subjective conclusion is logically flawed.

We could get into an involved conversation about epistemology. I think that is a worthy topic of debate/discussion.
This thread however is about marriage.

Your rebellion against God is based upon criteria many, many men before you have already harangued about.

I have no rebellion against any gods. That is a mischaracterisation.

We're not in battle with each other here. I'm just pointing out that your non-acceptance of the fact that God defined marriage for us, a definition you refuse to accept....so what?

That is not a fact.

The consequences of your beliefs are what you will be forced into, no matter what rationale you may offer as to why you chose to not believe.

My unbelief has no consequences.

You're the pot demanding of the potter an explanation as to why He has refused to give to you what YOU want.

I'm not demanding anything.

Here's an interesting concept for you: What is intangible to you is not always so intangible to everyone else. Your experiences and my experiences are not the same. I have experienced tangibility you have not, and I'm powerless to make those things tangible to you. See? I'm defeated in that, and I have no way to bring to your sensory perceptions the tangibles I have experienced. Where, then, do we go from there?

Everyone has walked in different shoes, I respect and desire the diversity that this causes. It shouldn't be our goal to make carbon copies of ourselves. To experience the greatness of diversity we need to first respect others and their lives, their experiences and accept that there will be fantastic differences.
Have an interest in diversity but not a motivation towards conformity.

I like creating my music, and I am content with that. My music is intangible, and yet it brings joy and peace to lots of people. Some hate it, others like it. Some even refuse to admit that it's music. Rock on, my friend. Rock on.

If others can hear the sounds you make, then it isn't intangible.
If it is just music in your head and you don't go to the effort to make it audible then it would be intangible.

 

[SwordmanJr]

I didn't know we where trying to convince each other of anything.

What do you see as the purpose for discussion if not to be more than merely heard? Isn't there more?

I didn't think it would be contentious to state that a claim of a god's authority over marriage is an intangible claim.

That's not all that you said, but I'm past that now.

Marriage is a made up concept but it is rooted in reality.

Rooted in reality. Hmm. How about I make the same claim? Yeah. I think I'll cop that for my beliefs as well. It's a free-for-all, right?

The fact that a couple can make children and the fact that children are dependant for many years and so the parents have a vested interest to remain together and bring up the kids.

Based on what ethic? Why should they stay together just for those kids? What governs that doing such is the best thing to do? Did that evolve on its own?

The legal marriage concept protects the children's interests and in many cases also protects the mother, who often forgoes her career to take care of the kids.

Why? Shouldn't consenting adults do whatever they want?

Marriage as a concept is deemed important by human nature and the society we live in. It is made tangible by our governments.

And yet lots of adults are parading down and lining up at the divorce courts to jump from one legalized relationship to another. Isn't it great that we adults can go on to do whatever we want, even with that legal system that allegedly gives tangible substance to what you call "marriage"?. No law says we have to be good and effective parents when we have public schools to tell our kids that they may not be what they were born as, so what value is legalized marriage when our government schools are foisting mental illness on our kids? Heck, when we can turn over the responsibility to raising our kids to the government, then we're free to seek out all our pleasure, right? Whose to say I'm wrong on this? You? Someone else? Without God, it's total hedonism. Your argument, then, is meaningless given the realities of your godless system of "marriage".

The religious concept of marriage for me, has no consequence.

Hey, isn't that true of most anything we may choose to do? Isn't it equally true that doing wrong has no consequence until the appointed time comes to pay the price, usually when one gets caught if it was a serious crime that was perpetrated? With moral issues in our lives, you're still shucking and jiving as if the consequences aren't real just because you haven't seen the tangible consequences yet....as if they will never catch up with you. Lightning didn't come down and strike you dead yet, so everything must be fine, and will always remain fine, right?

Look at your watch, or a clock on the wall with a second hand. Every second that ticks by, you're that much closer to the moment that the things you claim are intangible and therefore unreal, they are all that one second closer, and each second closer that ticks by, closer to you than they were before. When you find yourself crushed under the weight of all those currently intangible realities, you will think back on this conversation and wish your beliefs had been true, for you will wish beyond reason that it will have been better had you ceased to exist at the point of your death.

I'm not trying to play the antagonist here. I'm just trying to be real. After all, my faith is such that it's imperative that I be real and warn you. It wouldn't be fair to you if I were anything other than what I am. If only you could hear yourself from a different perspective, or framework if you will, and the day is coming when you WILL look back at your words from a different framework, and it all will build up in you a horror beyond imagination if you don't call upon the One who took upon Himself the penalty of it all for you. It's up to you.

Being non religious, it doesn't impact me, my only concern is the legal definition as that impacts my life in tangible ways.

Religious? Dude, there isn't a religious bone in my body. Making an appeal to religion in relation to what I've been saying, and to me personally....man, you have no idea. You speak of what is tangible. Again, you have not one clue. There is so much more to reality than what you detect with your limited sensory faculties. You're hungry, naked, blind and utterly cold when you haven't been burned through and through with the fires of testing and revelation that turns to ashes the pathetic shell of our mere sensory inputs.

Words can never do justice to the experience. I can try to articulate what you've never seen and experienced as tangible, and still not come close to adequately enlightening your understanding, so why try?

Just keep on keeping on, man. I'm not the One who can bring to you what you seek. I'm just the messenger pointing the way. I'm not looking for a following like those hirelings standing behind pulpits. I point only to the real. Don't look to me for it. I'm flesh and blood like you. If you ever care to hang your hat on what you deem impossible, it may open for you, but dare not think that you can fool Him. He sees you to the very depths of your being....deeper than you have ever dared to look into yourself. Walk out into that desert, and your feet will burn, your throat will become parched, your breathing will become labored, and you will see what you're really made of inside if you dare embark upon that journey.

Most choose to stay where it's cooler and safer, drinking from the dirty rivers running through their pathetic lives. Not me, bud. I drink from that river of pure water that flows around the tree of Life.

Jr.

 

[stevil]

What do you see as the purpose for discussion if not to be more than merely heard? Isn't there more?

There are many purposes for conversation. Debate and making persuasive arguments is one such purpose and is generally a lesser used purpose.

Based on what ethic? Why should they stay together just for those kids? What governs that doing such is the best thing to do? Did that evolve on its own?

I don't claim to know all the answers.
My guess is that, evolutionary speaking, those people with traits of taking care of their offspring, well their offspring who inherited the same traits were more likely to survive and have offspring of their own.
Humans are different from turtles. Turtles lay their eggs and never see their offspring, when turtles hatch they are capable of looking after themselves.
Human babies have no chance at all of looking after themselves.

From a social construct, if parents walk away from their babies, well what do society do? Do we leave the babies to die, or do we seek to look after them?
Wouldn't it be logical for a governing body to create laws to compel parents to look after there babies rather than have the burdon fall onto others?
Wouldn't it be logical to have the man share some of the burdon rather than just the woman?
The legal marriage construct is there to protect the family, protect the children and also protect the mother. Rather than have the burdon fall onto society.

Why? Shouldn't consenting adults do whatever they want?

Because we live in societies and it makes sense to create reasonable rules.
We are capable of thinking things through and don't need to be told what to do by a "higher power"

And yet lots of adults are parading down and lining up at the divorce courts to jump from one legalized relationship to another.

I fully support divorce.

I'm not trying to play the antagonist here. I'm just trying to be real. After all, my faith is such that it's imperative that I be real and warn you.

You don't need to go around telling everybody about the doom and gloom of your beliefs.
Most people are well aware that many Christians believe that non believers won't go to heaven.
You don't need to harrass people

 

[SwordmanJr]

I don't claim to know all the answers.
My guess is that, evolutionary speaking, those people with traits of taking care of their offspring, well their offspring who inherited the same traits were more likely to survive and have offspring of their own.

One doesn't need to know all the answers to understand that all of life, given its complexity, did not come from random chaos, and neither did the nurturing of children.

Human babies have no chance at all of looking after themselves.

Then the question still remains where that ethic originated. To believe it's something in DNA without any such proof is to believe in the intangible since there is nothing known to make DNA tangibly capable of programming that instinct into humanity.

Ah, but there are those who then leap to the weakness of saying, "Well, we just haven't discovered it yet. It's only a matter of time..." How convenient. How quaint and flippant. If one is going to believe in that, then why not God? Floating around in the ether, tossed to a fro by every wave of suggestions originating from people who have all kinds of letters attached to their name, such as PhD and such, assuming they are infallible because of that, that is known as the fallacy of an appeal to authority....and being star struck.

From a social construct, if parents walk away from their babies, well what do society do? Do we leave the babies to die, or do we seek to look after them?

Why worry about that? You still haven't explained that one. From where do you get that ethic if not from what God has placed within us all. Genetics are not God. God is God. The mathematically challenged are those who go about pointing at purely naturalistic causes, never wanting to delve into the magnitude of implausibility of proteins magically arranging themselves into a complex enough chain to the extent that an organism is formed capable of reproducing.

Wouldn't it be logical for a governing body to create laws to compel parents to look after there babies rather than have the burdon fall onto others?

But you're still refusing to grapple with the ORIGIN of that desire to shelter our children from harm. You believe in MANY intangible realities, and yet demand that God's existence meet a higher standard than your own subjective acceptance of naturalistic evolution, which happens to have such enormous mathematical improbabilities stacked against it that it clearly rests within the realm of the impossible.

Wouldn't it be logical to have the man share some of the burdon rather than just the woman?

Logic? Where did that come from? What's the origin? How do we know its worthwhile to hold onto? Why can't we adopt some other standard that's more fun, like hedonism? Yeah. Hedonism and nihilism are far more fun. Children just drag us down, right, and keep us from getting out there and doing what we want? Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die and exist no more.....

How do you measure all of that as being of less value or more wrong than right in relation to exercising responsibility as you seem to see it? How is your ethic superior to the hedonist and/or nihilist?

The legal marriage construct is there to protect the family, protect the children and also protect the mother. Rather than have the burdon fall onto society.

So what? Who are you or anyone else to say that what you're saying is superior to just going out and partying and enjoying life to the fullest?

Because we live in societies and it makes sense to create reasonable rules.

To what purpose? You still haven't explained any empirical, foundational origin for that ethic.

We are capable of thinking things through and don't need to be told what to do by a "higher power"

Then please explain to me the origin of the ability to think and rationalize? Did one of those rocks in your back yard give you that ability? I mean, give me something tangible to go on as to origins.

You don't need to go around telling everybody about the doom and gloom of your beliefs.

What? Huh? What are you talking about? I didn't say anything about gloom and doom. I said to rock on, dude. Rock on. Where's the gloom and doom in that? Are you depressed or something? Isn't life enough of a party for you to lighten up and enjoy yourself?

Most people are well aware that many Christians believe that non believers won't go to heaven. You don't need to harrass people

Oh, come on! Stop playing the victim card. Let's be adults, ok? I did nothing but uphold your right to choose whatsoever you wanted in life and faith....or lack thereof. Leave the victimhood thing for the college campus snow flakes and leftist liberals who do nothing more than call others names, slander their character and claim assault when confronted with what they don't like hearing since they can't rationally and intellectually defend their position. Are you identifying as one of them? I mean, you tell me. I'm just asking.

Jr.

 

[stevil]

One doesn't need to know all the answers to understand that all of life, given its complexity, did not come from random chaos, and neither did the nurturing of children.

The theory of evolution does not hold that complex creatures have come about through random chaos.

Then the question still remains where that ethic originated. To believe it's something in DNA without any such proof is to believe in the intangible since there is nothing known to make DNA tangibly capable of programming that instinct into humanity.

Behavioural traits are genetically passed down. This has been proven.

Why worry about that? You still haven't explained that one. From where do you get that ethic if not from what God has placed within us all.

Many animals care for their young, and in often different ways. We all have our habits, customs and behaviour traits.

Logic? Where did that come from? What's the origin?

The minds of many great thinkers throughout human history.
When I went to university I took a couple of logic courses.

Hedonism and nihilism are far more fun.

I would classify myself as a nihilist.

How do you measure all of that as being of less value or more wrong than right in relation to exercising responsibility as you seem to see it? How is your ethic superior to the hedonist and/or nihilist?

I am a nihilist, so my ethic isn't superior.

Then please explain to me the origin of the ability to think and rationalize? Did one of those rocks in your back yard give you that ability? I mean, give me something tangible to go on as to origins.

I'm no expert in this field. But as I understand it, much scientific research has been done and is being done to work out how humans came about the ability to think as deeply as we do.

Leave the victimhood thing for the college campus snow flakes and leftist liberals who do nothing more than call others names, slander their character and claim assault when confronted with what they don't like hearing since they can't rationally and intellectually defend their position. Are you identifying as one of them? I mean, you tell me. I'm just asking.

I'm not from USA please don't try and politicise our discussion.