Yes, I absolutely believe the writings were divinely inspired.
That's what I can't believe is that we are all so stupid that we would have never known how to treat each other unless some god told us to.
Can you honestly look around and think that is true? Â Man has absolutely shown throughout history that it lacks a moral compass when it comes to selfishness. Â Even Christians have bent the teachings of the Bible to follow their own corrupt desires, but I don't think I need to convince you of that.
Again, people all over the world pre-jesus and outside of the middle east found ways to live together and be decent, with and without religion.
bradley414 wrote:Yes, I absolutely believe the writings were divinely inspired.
That's what I can't believe is that we are all so stupid that we would have never known how to treat each other unless some god told us to.
Can you honestly look around and think that is true? Man has absolutely shown throughout history that it lacks a moral compass when it comes to selfishness. Even Christians have bent the teachings of the Bible to follow their own corrupt desires, but I don't think I need to convince you of that.
Again, people all over the world pre-jesus and outside of the middle east found ways to live together and be decent, with and without religion.
Really? Like who?
You can't believe that every other belief system in the world is so incapable of figuring out what's right and wrong that they had to wait for Christianity to spring up? The native american tribes couldn't were just tearing each other apart because they were savages and didn't have jesus? The Aztecs and Incas built great empires and agriculture systems but didn't know that stealing would be bad? The Chinese would have never achieved enlightenment through Buddha, only jesus?
Come on now.
People are all jackasses, but we're all generally good to one another. I don't go around taking people's things because I don't want them taking mine. I don't think go around shooting people because I don't want them shooting me. It's a shame the golden rule is in the bible becuase it's the perfect secular humanist view to have.
DTO Luv wrote:How? You have to believe it. It says in the bible "no man come unto the father but through me". If your infallible word of god is true like christians claim it to be than everyone pre-Jesus that wasn't Jewish is in heck. No if ands or buts about it. So if you don't believe this than I'm guessing there's other parts of the bible that you've come to conclude aren't logical either. If you've had to do this much reinterpreting than there's no point in believing in it. You're a good guy Chris and there's tons of people I know like you. None of you need a savior.
-The Catholic church believes in 3 types of baptism:
1. Traditional Baptism
2. Baptism by Blood (martyr)
3. Baptism of desire
The last one if for people who follow the word of God and are truly sorry for sins they have committed. Thus, those people can still get into heaven:
"Non-Christians who seek God with a sincere heart and, moved by grace, try to do His will as they know it through the dictates of conscience can also be saved without water baptism; they are said to desire it implicitly. (cf. Catechism, 1260)"
Thus, if they were unaware of God, they could still "try to do His will as they know it."
How is that believable? It's a man made policy to cover an obvious fallacy by someone smart long ago like myself who asked the same questions. It's all a bunch of nonsense. In fact it's directly in contradiction to what the bible says you have to do to get into heaven. Religion is a waste of time and energy.
DTO Luv wrote:How is that believable? It's a man made policy to cover an obvious fallacy by someone smart long ago like myself who asked the same questions. It's all a bunch of nonsense. In fact it's directly in contradiction to what the bible says you have to do to get into heaven. Religion is a waste of time and energy.
-Or, they realized Jesus was only addressing the people he was speaking to and not having a philosophical discussion about people who may not even know he exists.
DTO Luv wrote:How is that believable? It's a man made policy to cover an obvious fallacy by someone smart long ago like myself who asked the same questions. It's all a bunch of nonsense. In fact it's directly in contradiction to what the bible says you have to do to get into heaven. Religion is a waste of time and energy.
-Or, they realized Jesus was only addressing the people he was speaking to and not having a philosophical discussion about people who may not even know he exists.
Further proving my point. If Jesus rules only apply from him forward then everyone in the history of ever is in h*ll (Stupid censor I refuse to say heck). It's also ignorant for the catholic church to to make a man made policy and try apply it retroactively to give people warm fuzzies. How do we know that Ghengis Khan wasn't doing "god's" work? God is quite fond of wiping out civilazations. Maybe Khan was doing his work in the far east.
DTO Luv wrote:It's also ignorant for the catholic church to to make a man made policy and try apply it retroactively to give people warm fuzzies. How do we know that Ghengis Khan wasn't doing "god's" work? God is quite fond of wiping out civilazations. Maybe Khan was doing his work in the far east.
-That is why it is called faith. We have no way of knowing for sure. Thus, we take the information we have and try to properly interpret it.
This is similar to the Constitution. Â It was great when it was written. Â 200+ years later and things have progressed so much that we are left to try and interpret what was intended (abortion, gun rights, etc.).
DTO Luv wrote:It's also ignorant for the catholic church to to make a man made policy and try apply it retroactively to give people warm fuzzies. How do we know that Ghengis Khan wasn't doing "god's" work? God is quite fond of wiping out civilazations. Maybe Khan was doing his work in the far east.
-That is why it is called faith. We have no way of knowing for sure. Thus, we take the information we have and try to properly interpret it.
This is similar to the Constitution. It was great when it was written. 200+ years later and things have progressed so much that we are left to try and interpret what was intended (abortion, gun rights, etc.).
So with all of these different things to put your faith in what's the point? Islam faith tells you to kill everyone that's not a muslim. Should we be ok with that just because they're being good little muslims? Absolutely |expletive| no!
Also you don't need faith to read the constitution. It's flexible unlike religious doctrine, well unless it's catholic as I found out and it flexible but set in stone. Â Condoms to AIDS ridden areas in Africa= BAD. What a lovely made up death cult to be in!
Not to go to off the deep end, I know faith is important to a few of you so just so you know, God listens....
joeglow wrote:
Thus, we take the information we have and try to properly interpret it.
How do you account for catholic inventions, which have zero scriptural basis?
Zero scriptural basis in that it is not in the bible or in that there are NO books NOT in the bible it is based on?
Not in the bible. Where is it written about
Transubstantiation
The pope
The rosary
Purgatory
Holy Days of Obligation
Annulment
Confession/Penance through a Priest
Selecting Saints
Etc. Etc.
I don't know the answer (again, it goes back to faith). Â I know popular belief is that Christ told Saint Peter he was to be the "rock" and all popes followed him. Â Personally, I believe the Church ultimately believes people need to live by the Golden Rule (do unto others...), but also realizes the benefits that can be achieved through the Church. Â The Catholic Church does more for investing in new homes in North Omaha than any other organization (including the government). Â They run many hospitals, homeless shelters, schools in low-income areas and Catholic Charities helps out millions of people, regardless of faith. Â I personally know plenty of people who have turned through the Church during times of crisis and that is what carried them through it.
CNN wrote:"We're taking this action today because, first, we believe that [the Defense of Marriage Act] directly interferes with Massachusetts' long-standing sovereign authority to define and regulate the marital status of its residents," Attorney General Martha Coakley said Wednesday afternoon.
"Massachusetts has a single category of married persons, and we view all married persons equally and identically," she said.
"DOMA divides that category into two distinct and unequal classes of marriage."
She mentioned a Des Moines Register poll that found 92 percent of Iowans said the ruling did not affect them.
And the other 8 percent were allowed to have gay marriages.
I just don't buy that gay marriages have somehow contributed to a decrease in divorce rates. Claiming that gay relationships are any more stable than hetero is as stupid as claiming that they are less stable than hetero relationships.
I think this is purely coincidental that it happens at a time when the economy is garbage and people can't afford to be single, let alone pay for a divorce trial.
He knows of at least 20 couples – and certainly there’s many more, he said – who have moved from Omaha to Council Bluffs, and that they have brought, at least, $3 million in income with them.
There's the real tragedy. Nebraska is systematically running off a lot of DINKs, and giving ones from other states absolutely zero reason to consider relocating here.
"Nebraska: a great place to raise a family. The rest of you can go |expletive| yourselves, though."
Coyote wrote:Just takes someone willing to take the state to court... And not have many conservative friends :P
Lots of us evil conservatives are pretty much OK with gay marriage as long as the rights of gays don't start superceding the rights of religious groups that don't want to have gay marriage in their synagogues, temples, or churches.
Really, the easy fix is to change the "marriage license" into a state record of marriage. Thus, a couple of consenting adults who are legally able to enter said contract and are willing to do so would be using the marriage license as the legal contract of marriage and the state would be assuming the role of a witness that has an interest in the awareness of the contract, but not the participants in the contract as long as they are legal to enter into it.
The legal rights of marriage would then attach to the contract rather than the ceremony and gays could marry without bothering any religious group that wanted no part of it.
bigredmed wrote:The legal rights of marriage would then attach to the contract rather than the ceremony and gays could marry without bothering any religious group that wanted no part of it.
Can't straight couples already get married by the state without of any kind of religious ceremony?
bigredmed wrote:The legal rights of marriage would then attach to the contract rather than the ceremony and gays could marry without bothering any religious group that wanted no part of it.
Can't straight couples already get married by the state without of any kind of religious ceremony?
That's what my wife and I did. It was inexpensive, quick and convenient. I highly recommend it.
Coyote wrote:Just takes someone willing to take the state to court... And not have many conservative friends :P
Lots of us evil conservatives are pretty much OK with gay marriage as long as the rights of gays don't start superceding the rights of religious groups that don't want to have gay marriage in their synagogues, temples, or churches.
Most of those places already can decide who can or can not get married in their building.
Coyote wrote:Just takes someone willing to take the state to court... And not have many conservative friends :P
Lots of us evil conservatives are pretty much OK with gay marriage as long as the rights of gays don't start superceding the rights of religious groups that don't want to have gay marriage in their synagogues, temples, or churches.
Really, the easy fix is to change the "marriage license" into a state record of marriage. Thus, a couple of consenting adults who are legally able to enter said contract and are willing to do so would be using the marriage license as the legal contract of marriage and the state would be assuming the role of a witness that has an interest in the awareness of the contract, but not the participants in the contract as long as they are legal to enter into it.
The legal rights of marriage would then attach to the contract rather than the ceremony and gays could marry without bothering any religious group that wanted no part of it.
Churches are never forced to marry anyone. And your second section literally just defined what marriage is to the state already.