Religious Fervor is on the March! | Page 2 | Golden Skate

Religious Fervor is on the March!

Grgranny

Da' Spellin' Homegirl
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
I didn't mean that only Christians would be that way. I know a lot of people that are not Christians and are still very nice, thoughtful and caring. What I meant was that if they followed the Christians values that is what it would be like. I also know that a lot of people that are Christian can also be hateful, etc. I just mean whoever follows the principal of Christians would be good. Hope I explained that right.
 

Dee4707

Ice Is Slippery - Alexie Yagudin
Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 28, 2003
Country
United-States
Joe, maybe marriage is the wrong term to use. This is why I say this. You have 2 people, male-male, female-female who have lived together for many years, have been good citizens, supported their community, church and live decent lives. One dies....what happens to the one left who built their life with a partner, both emotionally and monitarily?? I think the one left deserves something. How does that happen???
 
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
Joe, maybe marriage is the wrong term to use. This is why I say this. You have 2 people, male-male, female-female who have lived together for many years, have been good citizens, supported their community, church and live decent lives. One dies....what happens to the one left who built their life with a partner, both emotionally and monitarily?? I think the one left deserves something. How does that happen???
I dunno Dee, but it's still going on when hospitals refuse to let a partner to visit his/her partner of 40 years. when in sick bed.
I think but I am not sure, the Gay politicians want the term marriage to ensure equality. I also am not sure but the religious people see a marriage as their life which is not a gay life, and do not wish to share that term with gays despite the fact that the divorce rate is past the 50% rate; that murding spouses for insurance money is rampant, that alimony is not being paid, etc., etc., etc. Is wedlock really all that holy?

Maybe they could call it WedPartner as opposed to business partner.
 

Johar

Medalist
Joined
Dec 16, 2003
Some of the most religious of men I've met have been rude to anyone not model perfect. So much for treating fellow human beings with respect and kindness.
 

skatingbc

Final Flight
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Some of the most religious of men I've met have been rude to anyone not model perfect. So much for treating fellow human beings with respect and kindness.

I think that is what gets me the most about some of the uber-Christian folk (not all, but some!). I was raised in the Christian faith and don't seem to understand the discrimination that happens in our World today in the name of God. Whatever happened to treating others the way you want to be treated?
 
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
Bush is a God-fearing man but he approves torture whether or not detainees have anthing to say. Yeah. very Christian. No?
 

John King

Final Flight
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Frankly, I see a lot more anti-religious fervor than religious fervor these days. Atheism can be as fanatical and exclusive as any religion. I watched part of a debate between Christopher Hitchens and a Christian pastor the other day. It was remarkable how respectful and rational the pastor was compared with how downright nasty and irrational Hitchens was. Hitchens was relying on putdowns, emotional rhetoric and his nifty Oxbridge accent. I thought it was disgusting.

Not all athesists hold the same views. I had never really believed in God, but it was only after I read Ayn Rand at 19 that I declared myself an atheist, and also a radical for capitalism. The whole Objectivist movement (followers of Rand's philosophy) have a different approach to athesim that Hitchens or Dawkins (even though I found the latter's book The God Delusion intellectually invigorating).Whereas some atheists are rather nihilistic in their outlook, Rand & Co. are thoroughly intellectual.

As for Gay marriage, Ayn Rand's chosen intellectual heir, Leonard Peikoff, recently gave his support to it, saying he knows gay and lesbian couples just as secure in their relationships as any straight ones, and for him it is a way to sock it to the religious right, which he sees as more dangerous than even the socialists.
 
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
.

As for Gay marriage, Ayn Rand's chosen intellectual heir, Leonard Peikoff, recently gave his support to it, saying he knows gay and lesbian couples just as secure in their relationships as any straight ones, and for him it is a way to sock it to the religious right, which he sees as more dangerous than even the socialists.
But gay marriage is against the law of God and it should be against the law of the land. Some Christians will see to it that it will not pass for religious reasons only and no other reason - not even the 'equality' written into the constitution will matter. (as Orwell put it: All people are equal but some are more Equal than others.)
 

Particle Man

Match Penalty
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Leonard Peikoff, recently gave his support to it, saying he knows gay and lesbian couples just as secure in their relationships as any straight ones

Not true. Statistics show otherwise.

and for him it is a way to sock it to the religious right, which he sees as more dangerous than even the socialists.

That's a real intellectual there, who will support a political opinion just to "stick it to" a group he doesn't like. Very high-minded and honest.

Yeah, let's live in fear of the "religious right" who might ... restore some measure of values that we used to have in this country. Someone tell Mr. Intellectual that the unknown is clearly more dangerous than something we had for centuries. Especially given how many socialist and communist countries have utterly failed.
 

John King

Final Flight
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
But gay marriage is against the law of God and it should be against the law of the land. Some Christians will see to it that it will not pass for religious reasons only and no other reason - not even the 'equality' written into the constitution will matter. (as Orwell put it: All people are equal but some are more Equal than others.)

And slavery is condoned by the bible. Go to the website www.evilbible.com for numerous quotes from the bible about selling your offspring to slavery, buying slaves from neighbouring countries, and several other quotes strait from the bible.

If nothing else, there is one thing Christians cannot dance around: If the bible's condemnation of homosexuality is reason to make it the law of the land, what about the commandmant that thou shalt only work six days a week, and rest on the seventh day? Does it say anything about any exceptions? Police? Firefighters? Prison guards? Armed forces? Unless someone can point out something in the bible that can allow these exceptions, to be true to the good book, one would have to close down all of these on Sunday.

Finally, go to www.humanistsofutah.org/2002/WhyCantIOwnACanadian_10-02.html for that essay "An Open Letter To Dr. Laura". The bible clearly said those things. Care to clarify?
 
Last edited:

heyang

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
The Bible was written by people who interpreted the teachings of Christ based upon their frame of reference. The events happened years before - the people who wrote it were not there. Many of the 'anti' aspects were a reaction to the excesses of Roman society, not neccessarily what had been preached by Jesus. It's the gospels 'according to....'

Also, lest we forget, there were 12 apostles - not 4. The men who created the modern bible selected those 4. Anyway, it is wrong to interpet the bible literally IMO. It is appropriate to learn the lessons - do unto others as you would have done to yourself, he who has not sinned may cast the 1st stone, etc. However, I, personally believe that it's incorrect to take it literally since the Bible was written during a time of upheaval and change which does not neccessarily apply to modern times.

Thomas doubted, but he brought Christianity into Syria.

BTW, did you know that Christianity was the dominent religion in the Middle East and started declining DURING the Crusades? The Crusaders lumped the Arab Christians and slaughtered them as Muslims. Today, they are caught in the cross fire between the East that considers them Muslim by sight and their neighbors who are aware of them as Christians. Definitely, oversimplifying, but just a couple of notes I picked up from reading the recent edition of National Geographic magazine. Here's a link to the article.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/06/arab-christians/belt-text

If you consider the 3 dominant single God religions - Judaism, Christianity and Islamism - they have many basic teachings in common. Respect for a single God, belief in acts of charity, respect for life, etc. Each religion formed at a divergent time based upon whether the follower believed if a particular person was a prophet or a messiah. The symbolic acts may differ, but the base teachings are the same.

All religions have their extremists who believe they are performing acts in the name of God - the Saudi's who declared jiihad, Tim McVeigh who bombed the building in Oklahoma City, KKK, the Arab Christians who bombed a bus of Palestinian refugeess [thus triggering the Lebanese Civil War], the anti-abortionists who kill doctors, etc.

Since the 10 Commandments were given to Moses, a Jew, why are they considered 'Christian' values?

BTW, I prefer to consider myself agnostic - I believe there is a God, but I don't believe in organized religion, which SOME hide behind the symbols (praying, attending services regularly, etc.) while not living the important details....
 

John King

Final Flight
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
So if the bible is not to be taken literally, then what to make of it declaring homosexuality to be an abomination? As an Objectivist-oriented (read your Ayn Rand) individualist, I regard homophobia to be the real abomination. No one is saying you have to approve of it (homosexuality). But so long as it is between consenting adults, how is it any of your or my or indeed the government's business?

If you've ever worked on a Sunday, ate shellfish or wore two different kinds of fabric (all of which the bible declares to be an abomination), then you would have to prove how those actions are negligible, or else I'll dismiss your virdict on homosexuality as an example of you citing only those passages of the bible that coincide with your predispositions.

I say legalize gay marriage. And replace "In God We Trust" on U.S. coins and currency with "Who Is John Galt?":rock:
 
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
heyang - In his infinite wisdom and rush to get the oil, Bush's initial bombardment of Iraq was in the Christian section of Baghdad. 'Nuff said?

John King - I am not a bible scholar nor do I think there are many who are, but the word abomination is not an old hebraic word according to one who is a bible scholar. However, the bible in English is not literal, but actually fancied up to the taste of English royalty. A grain of salt helps you to get through it, if you keep your blood pressure down.
 

heyang

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
So if the bible is not to be taken literally, then what to make of it declaring homosexuality to be an abomination? As an Objectivist-oriented (read your Ayn Rand) individualist, I regard homophobia to be the real abomination. No one is saying you have to approve of it (homosexuality). But so long as it is between consenting adults, how is it any of your or my or indeed the government's business?


I don't think it is any of my business. As for the government, it's about legal rights and recognition. Is it semantics? Marriage vs Civil Union? Would calling any legal partnership [that is not sanctified in a religious ceremony] a civil union - either homosexual or heterosexual - resolve the issue of Propositon 8?

My parents got married in City Hall, neither being religious. They say they are married. Technically, marriage is considered a sacrament by the church - so, are they married or are they in a civil union?
 
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
I don't think it is any of my business. As for the government, it's about legal rights and recognition. Is it semantics? Marriage vs Civil Union? Would calling any legal partnership [that is not sanctified in a religious ceremony] a civil union - either homosexual or heterosexual - resolve the issue of Propositon 8?

My parents got married in City Hall, neither being religious. They say they are married. Technically, marriage is considered a sacrament by the church - so, are they married or are they in a civil union?
Very good points on marriage. Are couples who are married outside of their churches, i.e., civil marriages, are the marriages valid? If two ladies get married outside of their churches why would they not be considered as married?

Some churches do not recognize marriage in a civil ceremony. Princess Grace of Monaco (and Hollywood) had a civil marriage (for the State) and a religious marriage for the Church.
 

antmanb

Record Breaker
Joined
Feb 5, 2004
Some churches do not recognize marriage in a civil ceremony. Princess Grace of Monaco (and Hollywood) had a civil marriage (for the State) and a religious marriage for the Church.

This has to happen in most European countries (except the UK). The Church ceremony is the glitzy one but the actual legal one is the civil one. Often in european countries the couple will go to the town hall first for the legal wedding and then move on to the Church.

I have known weddings in South America where the legal wedding takes place the day before in smart suits and the church ceremony being the one with the big white dress etc on teh following day.

Ant
 

Ptichka

Forum translator
Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 28, 2003
I think it makes sense. In our case, our rabbi did not have the Justice of the Peace certification, so the next day we went to the city hall to get married legally. We celebrate the anniversary based on the Jewish ceremony.

BTW, Russia has a weird hybrid - the church actually WILL NOT marry you until you get a state marriage. A friend of mine ran into that situation - her fiance was married years and years prior, he did not keep in touch with his estranged wife, and could not find her to get his divorce from her (getting a divorce with one of the parties absent take a lot longer). They were expecting a child, and what they really cared about was the church wedding, but the Russian Orthodox Church wouldn't marry them until they had that state certificate. He finally got the divorce (his ex still wasn't found!), they managed to get the state wedding and got their church wedding in a week or so before their baby arrived.
 
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
All that legal Civil Marriage mentioned above makes sense. So why not same sex marriage, if it doesn't involve god or religion?
 
Top