Why is there no outcry from the Christian Right against divorce?

[sealchan]

Possibly. Meanings of words can change by usage, it is another thing when they are changed by government fiat.

That is the foundation of the issue, and a government that can control the definition of words by doublespeak, ultimately controls the populace,

But democratic governments, for all their fault, are not one way influencers. In the US certainly there is a lot of upwards influencing going on. Words have always been flexible things and cultures have always felt free to redefine them within useful limits to suit their own beliefs. Nothing new.

In a democratic society, changing a marriage law to include same sex marriage is as likely to honor the will of the people as it is to reflect merely the agenda of a few powerful people. And if those people aren't wanting to be in a same sex relationship then it must be that they are listening to the requirements of others. This is the sort of government response to its people's control that we want.

In the US we merely have a situation where there is a close balance between opposing points of view. Time and education and love will gradually tip the scales in the way that makes ethical sense long term.

 

[Spartan]

Right, because you can't. It's an issue of telling someone their lawn needs edging while their own is overrun with weeds and crabgrass.

Tell it to your pet carp.

 

[shmogie]

Therefore?
No, Paul told them to be good little slaves because Paul saw nothing essentially wrong with the slavery system of his dayt. And he was only stating the obvious when he pointed out that manumission was possible and they should keep that in mind.
Then in what sense are they judgments? It seems plain to me that any negative moral judgment is an assertion of the inferiority of the judged.
It'd be nice if that were true. Instead, not least in the US, we find churches demanding that civil laws echo their prejudices. Look at those states trying to get around Roe v Wade, for example, to the loud cheers of the Christian right.
I have no clear picture of why some people are sexually attracted to their own sex. Or to b&d, or to all the varieties of human nature. If it's freely consenting adults in private, it's none of my business ─ nor in my view yours, or any church's.

But ─ correct me if I'm wrong ─ you think of God as omnipotent; hence from your point of view, each of us must have the sexual identity we have because that's what God has wished on us. Omnipotence leaves no other possibility.

So where the churches and I differ is that I don't tell people the responsible and reasonable exercise of their own sexuality in their own lives is a sin and something which they must repent.

The omnipotence of God is irrelevant to the issue. God does not control humanity, it controls itself. Therefore, what results be tt war, genocide, depravity, torture, whatever, is all the result humans doing to other humans as a result of greed, hatred, power, or lust.

If a pedophile is removed from the Church, is that asserting superiority, or is it asserting that the laws of Christianity have been violated ? I am superior to no one, yet strive to follow the laws of my faith, which I have chosen. I once belonged to a denomination, was a leader, but because I believed they were following erroneous theology ( not anything we have been discussing) I asked for my membership to be rescinded. I feel no superiority to them, and I know they feel no superiority to me.

As I recall, you don´t live in the USA, so you have a warped view of the abortion issue here.

The majority of Americans want restrictions on abortion.

I do too, and it has little to do with religion, but much to do about the law, in which I am well trained.

The Constitution makes it clear that murder is a crime. What is murder, the intentional killing of another human.

At about twenty six weeks of gestation, the unborn is clearly a human. It looks like a human, it has a heart beat, it moves, some have been seen to suck their thumbs, many have survived at this age from a spontaneous abortion. To kill one of these babies is murder as defined by statute.

The cop out about them being unwanted, etc.,etc.etc. is totally irrelevant. Our founding documents are clear, every person has unalienable rights, they cannot be abrogated for any reason.

I support unlimited abortion till twenty four weeks, I cannot legally claim that a clump of non specialized cells is a human. No abortion after 24 weeks, except in the narrowest and strictest set of circumstances.

Roe v Wade is bad law for a variety of reasons. many pro abortion legal scholars say so.

There are states that have totally outlawed abortion, knowing the supreme court must revisit the matter because of their actions.

Roe is so legally bizarre , such shoddy reasoning, yet it covered the butts of the liberal Warren court, and those thereafter.

The majority of the people want restrictions, and now this court is pinned down, and will have to put itself on record. It is no longer a liberal court. We will see if they can justify murder, directly, not by slipping and sliding like Roe, which created out of whole cloth totally unenumerated rights.

It will be a giant clash, with hundreds of amicus cureiai briefs filed.

Roe will be overturned, and the gruesome slaughter of unborn babies will be stopped.

Our first child, due to extreme illness of my wife, was spontaneously aborted at twenty seven weeks. Neonatal care was not as advanced then, as now. He only lived a short while, but he cried, opened his eyes and looked about, and there was no doubt he was a baby, and no one should have the right to murder babies like him. It is barbarism.

 

[shmogie]

But democratic governments, for all their fault, are not one way influencers. In the US certainly there is a lot of upwards influencing going on. Words have always been flexible things and cultures have always felt free to redefine them within useful limits to suit their own beliefs. Nothing new.

In a democratic society, changing a marriage law to include same sex marriage is as likely to honor the will of the people as it is to reflect merely the agenda of a few powerful people. And if those people aren't wanting to be in a same sex relationship then it must be that they are listening to the requirements of others. This is the sort of government response to its people's control that we want.

In the US we merely have a situation where there is a close balance between opposing points of view. Time and education and love will gradually tip the scales in the way that makes ethical sense long term.

It begins seemingly innocuously. The marriage issue is no big deal to me, but it is an example.

Today we see people being called traitors for their politics, ditto for racists, ditto for naziś, ditto for communists. Allow a government that applies these to people, literally, to stop them from disagreeing, and see what you get.

It won´t happen you think ?

The post WWI German people were well educated and sophisticated, yet they allowed a mad man to say, whichever he chose, the word, and people died.

Words have great power to influence or inflame people, when they are manipulated to ensure power and control............................................................

 

[Jainarayan]

Tell it to your pet carp.

 

[Jainarayan]

supreme court decisions have been overturned by the following supreme court.

If and when a suit is brought before them and they decide to hear it. So don’t hold your breath about Obergefell v. Hodges being overturned. It’s been several years now, and there’s been no negative societal effect that they should hear a case (not that there’s been any) to overturn it.

 

[Jainarayan]

A word has a singl

A word has a single definition for thousands of years, it is changed in an hour to accomodate 5-8 percent of the populace, voiding thousands of years of understanding of the word.

Read 1984, especially why big brother strives so strongly to control the language and it´s definitions.

Face it and admit it: you don’t like the societal progress. No one has put forth any argument why and how “changing the definition of marriage” has caused any problems. Oh that’s right... it hasn’t. The Christian Right (more properly, Christian Wrong) doesn’t like it that they don’t have control over everything. And that is as it should be. This is not a theocracy. The Bible and it’s God have no place in US law, and fortunately never will.

 

[epronovost]

On the argument that people changed the language/definition and that is wrong, I would like to mention that language evolve over time. Nobody speaks like our distant ancestors. I don't think anybody calls people they don't knaves anymore. In the same fashion, a car used to be a closed compartment pulled by horses and now it's some sort of self-propelled vehicle on four wheels. A marriage is also not just a union between people, it's also a mixture of two things that goes well together like the mix of peanut butter and jelly. If marriage was such a sacred word, we definitely profaned it by using it in other, often ridiculous, context. Before marrying gay people, we made pretend marriages for our pets that mimic our traditions (and in some region of the world it's actually a fairly serious thing) and I don't think I heard people saying that this was some sort of travesty of a sacred ceremony and word probably because dogs in grooms and brides costumes are funny and adorable so who cares.

 

[blü 2]

The omnipotence of God is irrelevant to the issue. God does not control humanity, it controls itself. Therefore, what results be tt war, genocide, depravity, torture, whatever, is all the result humans doing to other humans as a result of greed, hatred, power, or lust.

No, it doesn't work like that.

God being omnipotent and omniscient and perfect knew before [he] created the universe everything that would ever occur anywhere ever in the universe, including this conversation and these posts to the exact letter, punctuation and any typos I might throw in. Therefore the universe exists and changes exactly and only as [he] perfectly foresaw 14 bn ya. Neither you nor I can do anything but exactly, to perfection, to the infinitesimal fraction of a Planck length and a Planck time, what [he] foresaw. Hence the universe exists and everything in it happens in accordance with [his] will.

Given the premises, there's simply no other possibility. When you're omniscient and omnipotent, then in every single instance, on earth or at the far end of the universe, there can only ever be one place where the buck stops.

If a pedophile is removed from the Church, is that asserting superiority, or is it asserting that the laws of Christianity have been violated ?

First of all, pedophilia doesn't involve sex between free and responsible adults, which you'll recall are central to my view.

Second, pedophilia has a predator and a victim. You don't have to be a Christian to know that can't be tolerated. Indeed, a scary aspect of the enquiries into pedophilia in institutions, is the repeated choice of churches to put their own interests ahead of the victim's. Some of them are still trying to avoid the consequences of those choices.

I am superior to no one, yet strive to follow the laws of my faith, which I have chosen.

BUT ─ surely that doesn't deprive you of your own conscience, your own ability to make decisions about right and wrong, your own exploration of what is good and decent, and why? I again point to slavery as a very plain example of a moral question supported by the bible about which humanity, or more accurately Western humanity, has changed its mind. The bible has caught the values and assumptions of a past cultural practice that we've outgrown. The same is now true of divorce, LGBT(&c), and the environment; and is or at the very least will all too soon be, true of 'Go forth and multiply'.

As I recall, you don´t live in the USA, so you have a warped view of the abortion issue here.

The majority of Americans want restrictions on abortion.[/quote] Having spent not many minutes looking at the net just now, I find a wide range of claims; but it doesn't seem to be seriously disputed that a majority of US citizens aren't opposed to abortion in the first trimester. Some exceptions are still required, but it's a useful place to start.

Roe will be overturned, and the gruesome slaughter of unborn babies will be stopped.

All that will happen if Roe v Wade is overturned is that legislative jurisdiction regarding abortion will be returned to the states. Then you'll have a return to the good old days, when abortion was only for those who afford to travel to a state where it was legal, or have it done illegally by a back alley practitioner somewhere. I'm old enough to remember those days. No sane person would want to return to them.

 

[Spartan]

Bible and it’s God have no place in US law, and fortunately never will.

That's horse manure.

"Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine. Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants." - Supreme Court Associate Justice James Wilson

You're busted.

 

[tas8831]

They (Christian Right) were so fixated on prohibiting same sex marriage, really without any valid Biblical citations, that they completely ignored Matthew 7. Or maybe they have an edited versions?

If the Christian Right got upset about divorce, they would have to be upset with most of their flocks and their political heroes like that serial adulterer in the White House.

Can't have that.

 

[tas8831]

The omnipotence of God is irrelevant to the issue.

Especially since it is not in evidence.

If a pedophile is removed from the Church,

They usually aren't - they are typically protected.

The majority of Americans want restrictions on abortion.

Yes, but a majority also want to keep it legal.

Weird that the 'small government' types are totally OK with BIG GOVERNMENT when it comes to people's private lives. Except their own, of course. Heck - evangelicals keep electing Scott DesJarlais even though he admitted to paying for a mistress' abortion. Ya'll aren't so consistent on your outrage or fetus-love, it seems.

I do too, and it has little to do with religion, but much to do about the law, in which I am well trained.

LOL! Well, let's hope you have training in something - science isn't it.

Roe will be overturned, and the gruesome slaughter of unborn babies will be stopped.

And then people like you will move on to wanting to outlaw contraception, and then will try to control what people do in their own homes, sexually.
And, of course, you will continue to not give a crap about the precious fetus once the cord is cut.

Fetus worship is ghoulish.



Hey - STILL waiting for your Christian Morality [sic] to force you to admit that you were fibbing about the 12 years-dead Stanley Miller interview:

For @shmogie - the posts in which I have asked you to link to/cite the "recent interview" with Stanley Miller (deceased 2007) you claim to have read:


@shmogie first made the claim here, 9.8.19
Speed of Light and the Age of the Universe

"Miller in a recent interview admits the experiment was a failure."


My first request, 9/11/19:
Speed of Light and the Age of the Universe




I won't bother quoting, but links to my subsequent requests:

Speed of Light and the Age of the Universe

Speed of Light and the Age of the Universe

Speed of Light and the Age of the Universe

Speed of Light and the Age of the Universe

Speed of Light and the Age of the Universe

Speed of Light and the Age of the Universe

Speed of Light and the Age of the Universe

Speed of Light and the Age of the Universe

Speed of Light and the Age of the Universe

Speed of Light and the Age of the Universe

Speed of Light and the Age of the Universe

Speed of Light and the Age of the Universe

Speed of Light and the Age of the Universe




I know, you later claimed that it was an interview with Miller's friend or something, but you never presented that, either.

Pity that this level of deception is commonplace in people pretending to be these moral and ethical paragons by virtue of their cafeteria-style adoration of ancient tales.

 

[shmogie]

No, it doesn't work like that.

God being omnipotent and omniscient and perfect knew before [he] created the universe everything that would ever occur anywhere ever in the universe, including this conversation and these posts to the exact letter, punctuation and any typos I might throw in. Therefore the universe exists and changes exactly and only as [he] perfectly foresaw 14 bn ya. Neither you nor I can do anything but exactly, to perfection, to the infinitesimal fraction of a Planck length and a Planck time, what [he] foresaw. Hence the universe exists and everything in it happens in accordance with [his] will.

Given the premises, there's simply no other possibility. When you're omniscient and omnipotent, then in every single instance, on earth or at the far end of the universe, there can only ever be one place where the buck stops.
First of all, pedophilia doesn't involve sex between free and responsible adults, which you'll recall are central to my view.

Second, pedophilia has a predator and a victim. You don't have to be a Christian to know that can't be tolerated. Indeed, a scary aspect of the enquiries into pedophilia in institutions, is the repeated choice of churches to put their own interests ahead of the victim's. Some of them are still trying to avoid the consequences of those choices.
BUT ─ surely that doesn't deprive you of your own conscience, your own ability to make decisions about right and wrong, your own exploration of what is good and decent, and why? I again point to slavery as a very plain example of a moral question supported by the bible about which humanity, or more accurately Western humanity, has changed its mind. The bible has caught the values and assumptions of a past cultural practice that we've outgrown. The same is now true of divorce, LGBT(&c), and the environment; and is or at the very least will all too soon be, true of 'Go forth and multiply'.
The majority of Americans want restrictions on abortion.

Having spent not many minutes looking at the net just now, I find a wide range of claims; but it doesn't seem to be seriously disputed that a majority of US citizens aren't opposed to abortion in the first trimester. Some exceptions are still required, but it's a useful place to start.
All that will happen if Roe v Wade is overturned is that legislative jurisdiction regarding abortion will be returned to the states. Then you'll have a return to the good old days, when abortion was only for those who afford to travel to a state where it was legal, or have it done illegally by a back alley practitioner somewhere. I'm old enough to remember those days. No sane person would want to return to them.[/QUOTE]
God is not omniscient. He does not know what hasn´t happened. You, like many, confuse omnipotence coupled with perfect knowledge of every possible possibility with omniscience.

I made no comparison of homosexuality to pedophilia , I simply asked a question.

You are absolutely wrong regarding Paul, you interpret his words to fit your political views, you do not use logic in reading what he says.

Paul reflects the position of Christianity, of Christ, in what he writes. Whether you or I like it, or not, the standards are what they are.

Choose to accept them, and join a Church, or choose not to.

The true church will never compromise on Godś standards, never.

In the United States, there is the right of association, and the right to practice oneś religion as one chooses. Unlike other nations, which compromise these freedoms in the interest of social engineering.

When Roe is overturned, restrictions will be put on abortions by the court, restrictions that reflect the desires of the people, and reflect the current medical understanding of what an unborn baby is, and when it feels pain.

You bring up the classic boogy man of abortionists. "If we don´t murder the baby, the mother will find someone unqualified to murder the baby ¨ It all begins and ends with choices, doesn´t it?

A proper abortion policy will give the mother the choice of an early abortion, or carrying her baby to full term. Any other choice would be illegal, except for specific heath concerns, physical health of the mother, not the bogus screen of mental health.

Any other choice made by the mother means she and the abortionist also choose to suffer the consequences of their choices.

 

[Jainarayan]

That's horse manure.

"Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine. Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants." - Supreme Court Associate Justice James Wilson

You're busted.

No, I'm not busted. That was another of your "nyah nyah" comments. That was his opinion, just his opinion, not a proclamation or a law. It's certainly not that way, now is it? The Constitution makes no mention of Christianity at all. It does mention "religion" twice: in the First Amendment "respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," and Article VI, which prohibits "religious tests" for public office.

"When the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all." Justice John Paul Stevens.

So you see, God has no place in American civil law. It is a wholly secular country.

 

[shmogie]

Face it and admit it: you don’t like the societal progress. No one has put forth any argument why and how “changing the definition of marriage” has caused any problems. Oh that’s right... it hasn’t. The Christian Right (more properly, Christian Wrong) doesn’t like it that they don’t have control over everything. And that is as it should be. This is not a theocracy. The Bible and it’s God have no place in US law, and fortunately never will.

A total crock full and overflowing with nonsense.

Do you know what the Federalist Papers are ? Take a read of them, you will find that the value of the individual, and individual rights come directly from the New Testament.

You are touting what Christian philosophy gave you, without even knowing it.

Enjoy.

 

[epronovost]

You bring up the classic boogy man of abortionists. "If we don´t murder the baby, the mother will find someone unqualified to murder the baby ¨ It all begins and ends with choices, doesn´t it?

A proper abortion policy will give the mother the choice of an early abortion, or carrying her baby to full term. Any other choice would be illegal, except for specific heath concerns, physical health of the mother, not the bogus screen of mental health.

The problem of accessibility is different then that of legality or morality of abortion (BTW, I'm in favor of legal, free, widely available abortion services up until the 16th week of pregancy for any reason the women might chose and medical, incest, rape and very severe handicap only for those afterward). If abortions are legal, but not accessible due to hard limits in clinics numbers, lack of fundings, pay walls, lack of trained nurses and doctors, we might force a woman in the situation that to use her right she would be forced to go to a black market or even be denied her rights. A right is only real and useful as much as it can be enforced, used and protected. Having the right of private property in world where buying anything is practically impossible is no better then no right of private property at all.

PS: Shouldn't mental health be considered? What if a woman develops a severe depression due her pregnancy (it can be hell on brain chemistry afterall) and develops suicidal or slef harming tendencies. Wouldn't, in a case like that, be reasonnable to justify an abortion on the basis of mental health?[/QUOTE]

 

[Jainarayan]

the value of the individual, and individual rights come directly from the New Testament.

Which was lifted from eastern thought, specifically the Bhagavad Gita, which predates Christ by at least several centuries, if not millennia. Everything Jesus says about our relationships with God, the impermanence of the world, the immortality of the soul, the afterlife, what is (un)important in this world come from the Bhagavad Gita. Not to mention that the birth story of Jesus is virtually plagiarized from the Krishna birth story.

 

[epronovost]

Which was lifted from eastern thought, specifically the Bhagavad Gita, which predates Christ by at least several centuries, if not millennia. Everything Jesus says about our relationships with God, the impermanence of the world, the immortality of the soul, the afterlife, what is (un)important in this world come from the Bhagavad Gita. Not to mention that the birth story of Jesus is virtually plagiarized from the Krishna birth story.

The idea that people had individual rights and responsabilities was developped several times at different point in human history. Native Americans before the colonisation had the concept of individual rights and freedom and in fact lived in more liberal societies then their European counterparts on pretty much every single metric. Norse also developped it well before they were christianised and the idea of a secular law enforced by a council of peers was first codified and spread by them in Europe. Pretty much every single human civilisation and culture has a form of individual right that is more or less generous. I don't think there ever was a time and place where people didn't have at least a measure of individual right and responsability. Let's not turn this into yet another pissing context.

 

[shmogie]

Which was lifted from eastern thought, specifically the Bhagavad Gita, which predates Christ by at least several centuries, if not millennia. Everything Jesus says about our relationships with God, the impermanence of the world, the immortality of the soul, the afterlife, what is (un)important in this world come from the Bhagavad Gita. Not to mention that the birth story of Jesus is virtually plagiarized from the Krishna birth story.

Bull. Christ never said that the soul is immortal, it is exactly the opposite. The afterlife ? For most there will be no such thing.

Yeah, yeah, yeah to the rest, nonsense. Christ taught from scriptures thousands of years old. They didn´t have gods beating each other up, with heads of monkeys, or ten arms or whatever.

 

[Jainarayan]

The idea that people had individual rights and responsabilities was developped several times at different point in human history. Native Americans before the colonisation had the concept of individual rights and freedom and in fact lived in more liberal societies then their European counterparts on pretty much every single metric. Norse also developped it well before they were christianised and the idea of a secular law enforced by a council of peers was first codified and spread by them in Europe. Pretty much every single human civilisation and culture has a form of individual right that is more or less generous. I don't think there ever was a time and place where people didn't have at least a measure of individual right and responsability. Let's not turn this into yet another pissing context.

You are absolutely right that disparate societies have developed similar ideals. Certain things transcend time, place, language and culture. In Norse culture it was women who ruled the roost. She was given the keys to the man's house at their wedding, and she carried them on her person. In fact, one of the goddesses (maybe Frigg, I forget) is usually depicted with keys. There's always a pissing contest when people are unwilling to acknowledge that their way is not the only way. This is where monotheistic religions fall short... sort of painted into a corner and can't think outside the box or do self-inquiry, cannot question.