Jensa said:
Hey, really? I live not far from Athens, too. About a half hour. You near Franklin County?
I wouldn't say Greene County is near Franklin County; it's actually pretty far.
It is suppressing, because by saying "you can't marry someone of the same sex," you're telling me I can't marry who I love.
If you wanted to marry a child (pedophilia), would it be suppressing to forbid that? If you wanted to marry an animal (bestiality), would it be suppressing to forbid that? If you were married to someone of the opposite sex but wanted to marry another person of the opposite sex while not ending your current marriage (bigamy), would it be suppressing to forbid that?
God doesn't rule the USA. The people do. (In theory, anyway) Since not everyone in the US is Christian, the laws shouldn't be made to reflect solely Christian views.
In other words, you're saying there should be no absolutes in the eyes of the law to allow for those whose religions believe differently. But look at that statement again: "The laws shouldn't be made to reflect solely Christian views." Isn't that, in itself, a statement that's being made absolutely? In other words, it applies some rule or standard to everyone across the board -- exactly what you're saying shouldn't be done. You've undone their own argument simply by stating your case.
The other problem with this statement is that I seriously doubt that you actually believe it. If someone said to you, "The laws shouldn't be made to reflect solely Christian views," and you violently physically assaulted him because your religion said it was ok to do that to people, he'd probably get upset. But by his own creed, he'd have to accept that while assaulting someone may be wrong for him due to his beliefs, it may not be wrong for you due to your beliefs.
Perhaps you may reply, "As long as you're not hurting others, you're free to do and believe what you like." But this is an arbitrary distinction (as well as another absolute statement). Who says I can't hurt others? What constitutes "hurt"? Where does this rule come from?
If this statement is made based on personal preference, it means nothing for anyone else. "Do no harm" is in itself an appeal to something greater -- a sort of universal dignity for the human person. But again, the question is where does this dignity come from?
As you can see, the further you delve into these questions, the closer you come to understanding that our concepts of right and truth are not arbitrary but are based in some greater, universal truth outside ourselves -- a truth written in the very nature of our being. We may not know it in its entirety, but it can't be denied that this truth exists.
What about the time when people did think the world was flat? What did they teach then?
The Church didn't have a teaching on it. The Church's job is not, nor has it ever been, to teach us astronomy.
No offense intended.. but that creeps me out. If Jesus was human, then that seems too close to cannibalism to me for comfort...
It's not cannibalism. After the consecration, the bread and wine are no longer bread and wine but the body and blood of Christ. But that doesn't mean the Hosts become a huge assortment of arms, legs, fingers, toes, etc. Rather, Christ becomes SACRAMENTALLY present. Due to the miracle of transubstantiation, the form, that is, the outward appearances, of the bread and wine remain the same, but the substance is changed. In other words, while they continue to look, taste, smell, and feel like bread and wine, they're no longer those but rather the body and blood of Christ. Cannibalism, on the other hand, is to eat food, but not just any food. For it to be cannibalism the FORM of the food has to be meat and or blood of ones own species. Since the form of the Eucharist is not meat or blood it cannot be cannibalism. So if a person eats a dead man, that would be cannibalism. If, on the other hand, a lion kills and eats several people, and then a month later a hunter comes along and kills and eats that lion, that would not be cannibalism.
