Mclean's - Do atheists care less?

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

How about comparing the freedom we enjoy to the freedom our parents enjoyed 50 years ago.

for a black man, a woman, a gay individual, or really a minority of any kind it would have been a lot less. it's only a white male who could say their parents enjoyed a greater level of freedom 50 years ago (and even that's debatable), and unsurprisingly those are the only ones pining for the "good ol' days"

[Reggie Dunlop]

Fifty years ago there was also a Cold War and restrictions on political expression.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

for a black man, a woman, a gay individual, or really a minority of any kind it would have been a lot less. it's only a white male who could say their parents enjoyed a greater level of freedom 50 years ago (and even that's debatable), and unsurprisingly those are the only ones pining for the "good ol' days"

Well sure.

But there is a definite push in the direction where civil liberates, privacy, freedom of speech, etc, etc are being taken away.

The US government is especially notorious for not respecting those 'rights.'

[Reggie Dunlop]

Ridiculous assertion.

You are free to express your opinions via this thing called the Internet (the most significant mass communication tool since the invention of movable type).

Technological advances have intruded upon privacy, a tool as easily available to businesses and individuals as well as government.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by photon

Well of course, no one lives according to something they think is wrong. However there's a difference between "I'm living the way I think is best" and "You should live the way I think is best".

How about one saying "We all should live the way God thinks best" as opposed to "We should all live absent of any acknowledgement of God according to the cultural moral standards of the day". Atheist are just as guilty as Christians of trying to influence the course of our society.

Originally Posted by photon

I don't know if I'd call it a rapid rate, but there is pressure and movement that way I'd agree... but there's always people who want to control what other people can do, and those people will use whatever tool they can, be it religion or government or whatever.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by photon

There's a difference between promoting and imposing. It's ok for a group to say "we don't do this, and you shouldn't", though it's probably a bit hypocritical when they in fact do it. Better would be "we try not to do this, and you should try not to too". But once they say "we aren't allowed to do this and neither are you" it crosses a line.

Agreed. Remember I do believe it was wrong to outlaw homosexuality. Where we differ is on marriage. I don't see it as a human right. Moreover, the only justifiable reason for the government to be involved is because of the traditional role that institution provides in the producing of our next generation and transmitting our culture to it.

Originally Posted by photon

It's not necessarily hypocritical. If someone professes sola scriptura then yes it would likely be hypocritical, but not everyone believes that. Some see the Bible a bit differently and the improving social mores are reflected and documented historically in scripture rather than originating them.

Yes within Christianity there is many different camps. Some hold traditions or church authority above scriptural authority.

Originally Posted by photon

You also don't see people who get divorces rights limited, be social outcasts, etc. It seems appropriate for a group fighting for equality to do things to try and get that equality.

Marriage isn't a right. It is a privilege afforded to a distinct group who are best equipped to provide a unique contribution to society.

Originally Posted by photon

As has been pointed out people got married long before there was a Christianity.

Sure but, at the founding of our nations Marriage was a Christian religious institution. The laws were created understanding this or else Pastors and Priests wouldn't be issued licences to preform marriages. The lawmakers obviously saw a need to protect and edify this particular institution.

Originally Posted by photon

If a church doesn't want to perform gay marriages, they aren't forced. Some churches do want to perform them. Churches have been performing same sex marriages for a long long time:

Sure and I don't believe the government should have the authority to tell a church what they can and can't do. That is why there is separation of church and State.

Originally Posted by photon

And divorce isn't promoted as a positive, but neither is it advocated that laws should be changed so that people cannot get divorced if infidelity is not a factor.

True because that is a church discipline matter for those within the church and a private choice outside of the church. Divorce like marriage is an area where the government saw a need to write laws to protect those involved.

Originally Posted by photon

I don't know many Christians that would say that someone should not get a divorce if their partner was abusive to them or the kids (physically, emotionally, sexually). If some one's wife/husband was physically their children, isn't divorcing them the right thing to do?

Immediate separation is the right thing to do. You wait and pray for them to take the steps necessary to gain self control. You don't receive them back until you are confident that there has been true repentance and they have control of themselves.

Originally Posted by photon

Could he be a deacon? Be in ministry? Sing in the worship team? Teach night classes? Help collect the offerings? Be an usher? Be a greeter? Attend services?

Both Pastors and Deacons are held to a higher standard then other members of the church. Part of their qualifications is that they must be blameless. Even a man who divorced on the grounds of fornication wouldn't be considered blameless. How would they council married couples? A Pastor or a Deacon can lose their office for even having a rebellious child. As far as the rest of your list goes they would be qualified if they are in a right relationship with God.

Originally Posted by photon

Now ask those same questions of a homosexual couple in the church. The answers should be exactly the same for the divorced man and the homosexual persons right?

A practicing homosexual wouldn't be allowed membership within the church I attend. That alone would exclude them from any office. They could attend services if they chose. Anyone who divorces their spouse for a reason other than adultery(fornication) would expect to be cast out of the church. This usually happens before the divorce when one of the partners refuses to work towards eventual reconciliation.

[SeeBass]

"How about one saying "We all should live the way God thinks best" as opposed to "We should all live absent of any acknowledgement of God according to the cultural moral standards of the day". Atheist are just as guilty as Christians of trying to influence the course of our society."-Calgary Born


Get back to me when atheists start banning books

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

How about comparing the freedom we enjoy to the freedom our parents enjoyed 50 years ago.

You've tossed this little tidbit in at least 2 other threads and when someone calls you out on it, you continue dodging the question.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Azure

The only reason I single them out is because of their stance against gay marriage. On the other hand they have no problem with divorce and remarriage. Remarriage of course being key.

Its hypocritical. And not merely just being human.

If you want to go by Bible standards, people will make mistakes all the time, born again or not. But to willingly live in sin(remarriage)....is a different story.

When Moses introduced the letter of divorce to the Israelites its sole purpose was to allow for remarriage. There was no division of property or any other considerations. In a society without a police force and a very simple legal system any property a women possessed would be taken from her. Jesus said: "it was because of the hardness of man's heart that Moses introduced divorce". What he meant wasn't that men wouldn't stop pouting so he gave in. The problem was that men were ditching their wives which left them unprotected and impoverished. What made matters worse was that if she tried to enter into another relationship she could be accused of adultery. This left God with two options: force the man to keep his unwanted wife or command him to free her of the marriage covenant. Knowing what men are capable of God chose the latter.

The point is a lawful divorce in the Old Testament allowed for remarriage. The New Testament is no different; a lawful divorce(on the grounds of adultery) frees one for lawful remarriage. A unlawful divorce is a sin and any remarriage under those circumstances is sin.

The next question obviously becomes: What to do if you have entered into a marriage that was unlawful? Do you have to go back to your first marriage? Well according to Duet 24:4 the answer to the second question is that you can't go back. God considers that an abomination. The first question isn't so cut and dry. I do know from the original language(Greek) that the sin in remarriage isn't expressed as a continuous action but, a point in time. My thinking is that even if the vow was a sin to make, it is still a vow; You can't take it back. You can seek forgiveness and reconciliation with God but you are stuck in the bed you made for yourself.

I realize other Christian sects view marriage and divorce in a different light. Some rely on their sects traditions and others select only certain scriptures to try to use them as a means of security to protect marriages from divorce.

Originally Posted by photon

How is getting remarried after a divorce any different from two gay people getting married?

They're both are sins unless the first was a result of an unfaithful mate.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

How about one saying "We all should live the way God thinks best" as opposed to "We should all live absent of any acknowledgement of God according to the cultural moral standards of the day".

Since when does a person need God to have morals?

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Atheist are just as guilty as Christians of trying to influence the course of our society.

So?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

They're both are sins unless the first was a result of an unfaithful mate.

I agree.

Like I said earlier, I don't want to start judging people on 'divorce/remarriage' because I would never force it upon anyone to have to stay in a marriage where they are abused.

But, you and me both know that a lot of 'Christian' people have been divorced and remarried for reasons that don't involve unfaithfulness or being abused, and these same people are so against gay marriage.

There is hypocrisy in that, and I think you would agree.

For the record, I agree with a lot of your other points. I know a lot of people on here love to attack you for all kinds of reasons but I've always admired your viewpoint on these issues.

Its sad when we become so threatened by an opposing viewpoint that we can't see things from a different perspective.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

How about one saying "We all should live the way God thinks best" as opposed to "We should all live absent of any acknowledgement of God according to the cultural moral standards of the day". Atheist are just as guilty as Christians of trying to influence the course of our society.

I don't think most people who don't believe in god would want to force others to "live absent of any acknowledgment of god" any more than most theists would want to force others to live the way their particular god thinks best.

I don't know where atheists came into this though, the part you quoted was about people limiting other people's freedoms based on their own beliefs.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Where we differ is on marriage. I don't see it as a human right.

That's what I mean, limiting what someone else can and cannot do based on your particular view. Is it not sufficient to let those who subscribe to the same views on marriage have whatever limits they want on it?

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Marriage isn't a right. It is a privilege afforded to a distinct group who are best equipped to provide a unique contribution to society.

Which group? Best equipped according to who? By who's standards? Just last year some couple got denied a marriage license in the US because one was black and the other was white...

Why isn't marriage a right?

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Sure but, at the founding of our nations Marriage was a Christian religious institution. The laws were created understanding this or else Pastors and Priests wouldn't be issued licences to preform marriages. The lawmakers obviously saw a need to protect and edify this particular institution.

If the laws were created understanding that then clergy would have been granted exclusive licenses, but that wasn't the case. And I disagree, marriage has always been a compact between the people getting married and the society they exist in, since a married couple and the family are afforded special considerations within society. It's a private contract with implications for all of society (not just those of a particular religious group within that society), and our societies here are secular.

And even if it was a religious institution then doesn't necessarily mean that it should be now.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Sure and I don't believe the government should have the authority to tell a church what they can and can't do. That is why there is separation of church and State.

Then the solution is easy; the law should permit homosexual marriages and allow those churches who wish to perform homosexual marriages to do so, since the government shouldn't have the authority to tell a church what it cannot do.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Immediate separation is the right thing to do. You wait and pray for them to take the steps necessary to gain self control. You don't receive them back until you are confident that there has been true repentance and they have control of themselves.

Abuse is as much a breech of trust and commitment as infidelity; moreso because infidelity is just giving in to temptation while abuse is intent to harm.

Telling one person they can get a divorce because their partner fooled around but telling another person they have to eventually go back to the person who abused them or forever more be single isn't reasonable. I understand that's the way it says scripture but people's actions speak louder than words; when it comes down to it people get divorced at the same rate, Christian or otherwise.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Part of their qualifications is that they must be blameless.

I thought we just got done saying no one is blameless and everyone fails to live up to their ideals.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

As far as the rest of your list goes they would be qualified if they are in a right relationship with God.

Well they would be qualified if they appear to be in a right relationship.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

A practicing homosexual wouldn't be allowed membership within the church I attend.

How about a fat person then (gluttony), could they be a member? A smoker? Someone who takes too much pride in their appearance? Someone who gossips?

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Azure

But, you and me both know that a lot of 'Christian' people have been divorced and remarried for reasons that don't involve unfaithfulness or being abused, and these same people are so against gay marriage.

There is hypocrisy in that, and I think you would agree.

There is hypocrisy in that.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Azure

But, you and me both know that a lot of 'Christian' people have been divorced and remarried for reasons that don't involve unfaithfulness or being abused, and these same people are so against gay marriage.

There is hypocrisy in that, and I think you would agree.

I'm as far from a Christian as you can get and while I don't crusade against it I'm not a supporter of it either.

I suppose I'm old school but I'll never get used to seeing two guys holding hands or kissing in public, Gayness is becoming far to open and allowing marriage isn't helping IMO.

Just as Christians believe Gods plan was for the union between a male and a female I believe evolution needs the same thing.

Sorry if this offends anyone, I don't dislike gay people in any way (actually have a few friends that are gay) but I don't believe they should flaunt it either. And most don't.

[photon]

"I don't dislike gay people in any way (actually have a few friends that are gay) but I don't believe they should flaunt it either."

I don't dislike black people in any way, but I don't believe they should flaunt it either.

I'm not gay so I can't say for sure, but that's probably similar to how what you said sounds to a gay person. If a hetrosexual couple can hold hands and kiss in public, then so can a homosexual one.

As for evolution needing the same thing, that's flawed on many levels. First evolution "needs" no such thing, evolution is change via natural selection, and a male/female reproductive system is only one way organisms reproduce. Some species reproduce asexually, some change their sex as needed, some are hermaphrodites, etc. Second, homosexuality occurs in the wild among many many species so evolution clearly doesn't "need" a male and a female, quite the opposite it clearly gives some kind of advantage to associated genes which give rise to homosexuality.

And third the scientific explanation for how something works does not translate into a moral judgment.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by photon

I don't think most people who don't believe in god would want to force others to "live absent of any acknowledgment of god" any more than most theists would want to force others to live the way their particular god thinks best.

I don't know where atheists came into this though, the part you quoted was about people limiting other people's freedoms based on their own beliefs.

I used Atheists as an example because they have been very active in our life time at trying to restrict public expression of the Christian faith. I suppose I could of used Islam or Communism but, the point is we all try to influence our world believing it would be a better place because of our imput.

Originally Posted by photon

That's what I mean, limiting what someone else can and cannot do based on your particular view. Is it not sufficient to let those who subscribe to the same views on marriage have whatever limits they want on it?

We are not talking about controlling what someone can and can't do as much as talking about what the government will and will not do for a certain group. We've been over this territory before. It isn't just homosexuals who are excluded. Polygamists and those who live together in nonsexual relationships are also excluded.

Originally Posted by photon

Which group? Best equipped according to who? By who's standards? Just last year some couple got denied a marriage license in the US because one was black and the other was white...

If you took a survey of North America and asked everyone to respond to the following Statement with a "true" or a "false" what do you suppose you would get in response? --Every child deserves a Mom and a Dad

Now of course if the question wasn't required to be answered with a "true" or a "false" some might qualify there answer depending on the quality of the parent. But all other factors being equal the overwhelming consensus would be that ideally they do. History confirms this ideal in almost all cultures. It is a natural arrangement that involves both of the biological parents. Sure there are marriages that don't produce offspring but, they are in the minority.

Originally Posted by photon

Why isn't marriage a right?

The question is: Why should marriage be a right?
or Why should the government involve themselves in what is a private or religious choice?

Originally Posted by photon

Then the solution is easy; the law should permit homosexual marriages and allow those churches who wish to perform homosexual marriages to do so, since the government shouldn't have the authority to tell a church what it cannot do.

No. There is no practical reason for the government to provide special benefits for any union other than a heterosexual union. If a homosexual couple wants a ceremony and finds a church willing to provide one I say:Go for it! That shouldn't be any of the governments business.

Originally Posted by photon

Abuse is as much a breech of trust and commitment as infidelity; moreso because infidelity is just giving in to temptation while abuse is intent to harm.

Telling one person they can get a divorce because their partner fooled around but telling another person they have to eventually go back to the person who abused them or forever more be single isn't reasonable. I understand that's the way it says scripture but people's actions speak louder than words; when it comes down to it people get divorced at the same rate, Christian or otherwise.

The Scriptures say what they say. A Christian can live by all of them or just the easy ones. I don't think there is much chance of a person ending up alone for life. Generally the abusive spouse moves on to other relationships when He/She realizes they have lost control and contact with their Wife/Husband.

Originally Posted by photon

I thought we just got done saying no one is blameless and everyone fails to live up to their ideals.

Nobody is without sin. One of the qualifications for a Pastor or Deacon is that they be "blameless". Since we know that that can't mean blameless before God it must mean within the community. A divorced man will have at least one person who finds blame in him. Probably more than one person.

Originally Posted by photon

How about a fat person then (gluttony), could they be a member? A smoker? Someone who takes too much pride in their appearance? Someone who gossips?

God calls homosexually "vile affections".

[T@T]

Originally Posted by photon

"I don't dislike gay people in any way (actually have a few friends that are gay) but I don't believe they should flaunt it either."

I don't dislike black people in any way, but I don't believe they should flaunt it either.

I'm not gay so I can't say for sure, but that's probably similar to how what you said sounds to a gay person. If a hetrosexual couple can hold hands and kiss in public, then so can a homosexual one.

Seriously?
Alrighty then, hit me in the head with a big gay sex toy and call me a racist

Originally Posted by photon

As for evolution needing the same thing, that's flawed on many levels. First evolution "needs" no such thing, evolution is change via natural selection, and a male/female reproductive system is only one way organisms reproduce. Some species reproduce asexually, some change their sex as needed, some are hermaphrodites, etc.

I get that, difference is humans aren't asexual or hermaphrodites (unless you count the freaks that want to be) we need the opposite sex for evolution..period.

Originally Posted by photon

Second, homosexuality occurs in the wild among many many species so evolution clearly doesn't "need" a male and a female, quite the opposite it clearly gives some kind of advantage to associated genes which give rise to homosexuality.

Maybe their missing something, because a baboon is sexually frustrated and takes on his male cousin doesn't make it right. While not fully understood it's suspected that animal homosexuality in the wild kingdom has more to do with an animal not being able to find a mate then just being "gay"

I would like to know the percentage of male to female homosexual activity in the wild. I suspect a very large percentage is male.
And the evolution would stall till death if an animal species turned gay.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

God calls homosexually "vile affections".

I think the courts in Iran use that term as well, right before they hang them.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

You've tossed this little tidbit in at least 2 other threads and when someone calls you out on it, you continue dodging the question.

He's not going to answer that. It's empty rhetoric.

Ask some First Nations elders how whole the Christian founding fathers thing worked out for them. Ask 'em to compare things today to a half century ago.

Demographics change. Societies evolve. Funny though how he can't provide any examples of how Christianity is being currently suppresssed. Fact is it's being drowned out by its own growing irrelevancy and others long-overdue assertations of their own rights. The North American principle that once welcomed all various unwashed masses and protestant sects cast out of their homelands has expanded to embrace all other ideologies.

It ain't Calgaryborn's parents' world no more. They, their ilk and their progeny ain't runnin' the show. This is actually a good thing.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by T@T

I'm as far from a Christian as you can get and while I don't crusade against it I'm not a supporter of it either.

I suppose I'm old school but I'll never get used to seeing two guys holding hands or kissing in public, Gayness is becoming far to open and allowing marriage isn't helping IMO.

Just as Christians believe Gods plan was for the union between a male and a female I believe evolution needs the same thing.

Sorry if this offends anyone, I don't dislike gay people in any way (actually have a few friends that are gay) but I don't believe they should flaunt it either. And most don't.

Fair enough, honestly I have to agree on a silly level that I find it a bit difficult to see two men making out, holding hands or hugging is no big deal; but I can't deny that feeling you have either.

But I'm pretty sure you are in the camp of you don't choose to be gay that it is something you are born with. I know Calgaryborn thinks its a choice, just curious what he would think when science eventually confirms what most of us already know about being gay is not a choice.

Guess then they'll say god intended gay people to challenge their faith or something.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by T@T

And the evolution would stall till death if an animal species turned gay.

We usually get the biological imperative argument from the religious.

I am going to assume that you are also against infertile people from getting married as well? An infertile man should not be getting married because he cannot procreate and should wild animals mate with others that are infertile, their species would go extinct....

As for the holding hands thing, consider yourself hit over the head with big gay sex toy. It's 2010... get over it....

Thor: They will call it a "theory" and continue believing whatever it is that they want to believe?