24 Dec 09
1 edit
Originally posted by josephwAbsolute and unadulterated rubbish. Read it and weep:
On the contrary. The golden rule as expressed by Jesus is different from how it is expressed by other religions.
Jesus said to do unto others as you would have done unto you.
The others word it differently. More like, as others do unto you do unto others.
Check it out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rule
24 Dec 09
Originally posted by 667joeLet me be clear, it is my opinion that people should be given special rights if they take it upon themselves to have children.
Are you saying that heterosexuals who can't have children (or don't want to) should not be allowed to get married? Unless I am wrong, sir, you sound like you may be prejudiced against gays because you are in favor of denying them certain civil rights that you have. Is in vitro fertilization only OK for heteros? Should it be illegal for single parents to have children. Forgive me, but you don't seem tolerant of others.
24 Dec 09
2 edits
Originally posted by josephwI would have to disagree Joseph. As I said, this truth is innate and known to all. Therefore, we have no cloak for our sin whether we came befor or after Chrst or never was told of Christ. The question then becomes, what should be done to hide or sweep away our sins or change our hearts, and I think we both know the answer to that. 😉
On the contrary. The golden rule as expressed by Jesus is different from how it is expressed by other religions.
Jesus said to do unto others as you would have done unto you.
The others word it differently. More like, as others do unto you do unto others.
Check it out.
24 Dec 09
1 edit
Originally posted by josephwTo say that the rule came from God and the rule was not known to man before Christ came would be to say that the law that came before Christ was devoid of this underlying principle. Then no one could be accused of "sinning" because they had no way of knowing any better. That is simply not the case. In fact, that is what an eye for an eye is reflective of written in the Mosaic law, is it not?
Still, they're all counterfeits.
The rule came from God.
24 Dec 09
Originally posted by whodeyYour statement does not deal with anything other than conjecture and wishful thinking. Why should I take your word? Give me concrete proof if you expect me to believe you>
I would have to disagree Joseph. As I said, this truth is innate and known to all. Therefore, we have no cloak for our sin whether we came befor or after Chrst or never was told of Christ. The question then becomes, what should be done to hide or sweep away our sins or change our hearts, and I think we both know the answer to that. 😉
24 Dec 09
Originally posted by 667joeNot treating others the way you wish to be treated is what ailes us. Do you disagree? Therefore, to remedy this situation we should find ways to remedy this problem. We all have broken the golden rule, so the question becomes how can we change? Christ once said that whoever sins becomes a slave of sin. In other words, you tend to continue therein or be haunted by it. For me, this freedom came from one Jesus Christ. Of course, I can't speak for others who claim to have such freedom without Christ nor can I attest for those who proport to be Christians who continue down a dark road. All I can attest to is my own personal experience.
Your statement does not deal with anything other than conjecture and wishful thinking. Why should I take your word? Give me concrete proof if you expect me to believe you>
24 Dec 09
Originally posted by amannionOK, so we've established that there's an overlap - religious people have values that are shared by those who aren't religious.
Laws against murder and theft aren't religious in basis - human societies have always opposed these actions.
Now, how do we know for sure that opposition to abortion is religious in nature? Isn't it possible to make a case against abortion without using god/religion at all?
24 Dec 09
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyCase in point is the arguement that gays should be allowed to have the same rights, but not be referred to as marriage. Those that oppose this view simply object to the distinction based upon their desire for society to embrace the lifestyle.
Case in point is the arguement that gays should be allowed to have the same rights, but not be referred to as marriage. Those that oppose this view simply object to the distinction based upon their desire for society to embrace the lifestyle. So should the state be in the position of influencing the morality of the masses through legislation like they d ...[text shortened]... etter financial position than their heterosexual counterparts and don't need the extra support.
I would oppose it on grounds that gays ought to have the rights to do things like be at their partner's bedside when they're in the hospital, and have property rights over a shared dwelling if their partner dies, etc. I see nothing that forces society to embrace the lifestyle here.
So should the state be in the position of influencing the morality of the masses through legislation like they did with abortion?
The state cannot help but influence the morality of the masses. There is no way to avoid it. Whether they forbid, or legalize, abortion, someone's values are being contradicted.
The last paragraph is ridiculous - straight couples can and do get married without having children. Should we take away the rights of rich, childless, straight couples because they "don't need the extra support"? Absurd.
24 Dec 09
Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you
Confuccianism. Analects 15.23
One should not behave towards others in a way which is disagreeable to oneself. This is the essence of morality. All other activities are due to selfish desire.
Hinduism. Mahabharata, Anusasana Parva 113.8
Not one of you is a believer until he loves for his brother what loves for himself
Islam. Forty Hadith of an-Nawawi
24 Dec 09
Originally posted by SwissGambitYou could still give them the same rights and have their name changed without calling it marraige.
I would oppose it on grounds that gays ought to have the rights to do things like be at their partner's bedside when they're in the hospital, and have property rights over a shared dwelling if their partner dies, etc. I see nothing that forces society to embrace the lifestyle here.