Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion? Showing 9,301-9,350 of 12,463

[Travis]

cHriS wrote: "cerebus wrote:But this is my problem, you make a claim that a child needs both a mother and a father, but where is your evidence for that?

It is generally accepted by most of society (UK at least)..."

'It's generally accepted that using the phrase 'it's generally accepted' does nothing but make your point sound even more suspect.

Kids need parents and a stable family. In a perfect world every kid would.
But, sad to say, instead we live in reality.

So,denying a large group that can and want to do that, when there's no evidence they'd be bad at it, just because they don't fit your cookie cutter mental image of a family is either hypocritical, thoughtless and narrow-minded on your part.

There are gay couples already out there trying to give kids the best chance they can, and people decided that instead of helping them, that we should make that even harder.
Way to think about the children.

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Sorry to hear it, Shannon. Didn't mean to drag anything upsetting up.

But, yeah, if marriage is only about cranking out the next generation, then excluding gay couples with kids, but letting in couples that either can't or don't want to have kids only shines a spotlight on what a hypocritical argument it is. "

No need to be sorry. I found out ten years ago or so. I mourned it then and for a few years. Now, ... it is what it is ... and is more an echo than anything else. And, you're right. Further, I raised this as a point awhile ago in relation to the idea that marriage is for procreation.

[Travis]

cHriS wrote: "Travis wrote: they can have both.
So, if there are children, then it must be okay for them to be married.
"

Are you being serious? If a gay man for example, fathers a child, that's fine. He was ..."

I mean gay couples have children.
So, by your logic, that is the golden ticket that allows you the right of marriage.

Feel free to go further out on a limb and tell me which kids count and which don't count towards real families.

[Hazel]

one of the sweetest things I've seen was an interview with a lesbian couple, one of whom was pregnant, and they'd used sperm donated by a friend, and the egg of one of the two women, and they'd had the embryo implanted into the other woman, so that they could both be parents to the child, and they plan to do it the other way round next time. It was lovely.

[Dean]

Just watched the 'mockumentary' Religulous yesterday. By far one of the worst dvds I have ever seen! A so-called American comedian travels around the world asking people what they believe in and then laughs at them and attacks them for having beliefs. Was painful to watch. The stupid thing is that he preaches his own views throughout the whole thing....hypocritical, no?
There are small minded people on both sides.

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Sorry to hear it, Shannon. Didn't mean to drag anything upsetting up.

But, yeah, if marriage is only about cranking out the next generation, then excluding gay coupl..."

While, I am not against causing anyone emotional trauma on this thread, I'd just feel bad if I did it unintentionally.

[Travis]

Dean wrote: "Just watched the 'mockumentary' Religulous yesterday. By far one of the worst dvds I have ever seen! A so-called American comedian travels around the world asking people what they believe in and th..."

Well, it is Bill Maher.
You have no one to blame but yourself if you thought he wasn't going to be a jerk.

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "While, I am not against causing anyone emotional trauma on this thread, I'd just feel bad if I did it unintentionally. "

You didn't. I promise. Cross my heart, though I'll leave the rest out. :)

[cHriS]

Travis wrote: Kids need parents and a stable family. In a perfect world every kid would.
But, sad to say, instead we live in reality.

And if we addressed the imperfections instead of trying to paper over the cracks, maybe just maybe reality would be a bit better.

Travis wrote: So,denying a large group that can and want to do that, when there's no evidence they'd be bad at it, just because they don't fit your cookie cutter mental image of a family is either hypocritical, thoughtless and narrow-minded on your part.

'hypocritical', well that's the way to win a debate. When have I ever said that a gay couple should not adopt? Stick to the script.

Travis wrote: cranking out the next generation

Giving the next generation the best we can, until they are old enough to fly the nest. A mother and a father and a commitment. That is not always possible, we live in a cruel world and we have to make adjustments, things do not always work out as we want, wish, or hope but we adapt because that’s all we can do.

But we still need foundations and boundaries to build upon and not a free for all society.

People can and do adopt. That is not a reason to get married. Having children is a right (and yes I know some couple have problems, and help if affordable should be offered) but adopting children is not a right it is a privilege.

Couples straight or gay are vetted to see if they are suitable people to adopt. Couples have been turned down because one or both smoke, are over weight, the wrong age, past history is an issue, they use drugs, their home is an issue, or they are the wrong colour.

The reality here is that we have a society where to many children need to be adopted, that issue should be addressed so that there are not so many children that need to be put up for adoption…… the issue should not be who has the right to adopt.

Gay couples are being used to champion a cause where there is not cause. Gay couples have no more or less right to adopt than a couple of the wrong colour. A gay man can have is own child either naturally or mechanically and the child can have both a mother and two fathers in it’s life.

What gets up my nose is people who feel that they have to fight every one else’s corner and cause on their behalf. I am sure that there are enough gay folks who can fight their own corner if they were bothered with this thread.

[Mary]

Kim Kardashian, politicians, your neighbors,- divorce is everywhere. sex scandals, infidelity abuse, financial stress...1 out of 2 marriages fail. Divorce crosses all religions, social/economic stratas, and every other demographic you can name. iI highly doubt " gay marriage" is ever listed as the cause.

Heterosexuals do plenty to denigrate marriage all on their own. But it sounds like some want to protect us heterosexuals to make sure only WE can mess up a marriage.
I've been married to my husband for 26 yrs. not once have I felt our marriage or our family has been in any way threatened by gay marriage.
Any two humans willing to make a commitment to each should be allowed to. End of story.

[Amaya]

I'd like for our world to rid itself of religion. Science can stay. I find religion to be very confining and the people who preach it to be quite smothering with their beliefs and their way whereas science is more open to new ideas and expansion and people aren't as quick to judge that your idea is "wrong". Atheists seem to function just fine with their moral compass without having to resort to religion all the time.

[Mary]

Sorry Chris but... What exactly does " wrong color" mean?

[Travis]

so, adoption is okay, if a privilege, and kids need two parents and a stable and loving home life, and marriage is all about the kids, but it's still okay to deny gay couples rights, even if having those rights would help contribute to a stable home life for kids, but adopted kids apparently don't count enough.

society needs foundations, but if those foundations include denying people rights and passing into law who's families don't count then you don't have anywhere near enough paper to put over those cracks.

[[deleted user]]

cHriS wrote: "What gets up my nose is people who feel that they have to fight every one else’s corner and cause on their behalf. I am sure that there are enough gay folks who can fight their own corner if they were bothered with this thread."

Since I'm in the mood to share, ... when am I not, ... I'll tell you why I fight in other people's corners.

When I was in Kindergarten, my teacher was emotionally and physically abusive. One day, she locked me in the closet. Another child was with me. Not sure how long we were in there. We listened to her beating the other children, listening to the crying and screaming and begging for help.

It was a fairly small school, and the screams were pretty loud. No one came. No one came to help. After the sh*t hit the fan over that incident, everyone had an excuse for why they didn't hear.

I was young and impressionable and Oprah and Dr. Phil didn't exist yet. No therapy, etc.... It rather stuck with me, for a long time. What remnants of it remain today? Being unwilling to stand mutely by when others might be hurt.

Later, I grew up on a street with Jewish families. When in middle school, I had a teacher who had been in the camps in WWII. I heard stories. I cared about them and couldn't imagine their being harmed and killed just for their beliefs.

Now, ... I know this isn't the point of this discussion. Truly. I don't write this to add histrionics to the mix. It just goes to why I fight for others. When in middle school or high school, one of my teachers read that poem ... the one about the holocaust ... first they came for the Jews, but I wasn't a Jew so I did nothing ... ending with ... then, they came for me and no one was left to speak for me.

I truly remember sitting there in my desk feeling like .... I can't even describe what I felt like. It was as if this INCREDIBLE truth was just spoken and I'd never be the same. I remember sitting there and thinking ... I will never be silent ... I will always speak. Then, once, I was silent. I've never felt such shame.

Those stories, in part, explain a part of my personality and heart. That's why I speak as I do. That's why I fight as I do. Yes, I'm aware, in adulthood, that there's a fine line between standing up for what's right and fighting other people's battles for them. The latter might not be welcome and, sometimes, might lead the person not to fight for him or herself, weakening the individual. I don't know that I've learned to navigate that line perfectly, though, I'm better at it. I won't, though, allow fear of the latter to encourage me to stay silent. I think that would be worse.

Perhaps knowing the whys of the thing will help ... stop ... things going up your nose. I'm guessing that's an English saying ....

[Hazel]

this one Shannon, though why people always change it to start with the jews, I don't know, I think I've seen it in every order it could come in, as well as with some of the lines omitted.

[[deleted user]]

Hazel wrote: "this one Shannon, though why people always change it to start with the jews, I don't know, I think I've seen it in every order it could come in, as well as with some of the lines omitted.

"

I was thinking it started with another group, but I couldn't remember and didn't take the time to look. I'd stand for a communist, too, but the Jews ... well, ... I loved a boy who was Jewish, so that line spoke to me the most when I heard it. ;)

[Birdbath]

Science = religion. Different stories same effect.

[Mary]

Birdbath wrote: "Science = religion. Different stories same effect."

So if I get pneumonia or need dialysis, I can go to either a priest or a medical doctor and I will get the same result? Being that they are equal and all.....???

[Travis]

Birdbath wrote: "Science = religion. Different stories same effect."

Bit like saying Horses= unicorns.

[Travis]

Shannon wrote: "cHriS wrote: "What gets up my nose is people who feel that they have to fight every one else’s corner and cause on their behalf. I am sure that there are enough gay folks who can fight their own co..."

Personally, shannon, if chris doesn't get why you should stand up and fight for other groups, then i really doubt any amount of stories are going to improve the chances of dislodging whatever is up his nose.

[[deleted user]]

Travis wrote: "Personally, shannon, if chris doesn't get why you should stand up and fight for other groups, then i really doubt any amount of stories are going to improve the chances of dislodging whatever is up his nose."

cHriS deserves fighting for, as well ... fighting to find the words to help him understand where I'm coming from.

[R.J.]

It is late and I spent too long at the church tonight, but I'd like to wade into this fray about marriage again.

This is a subject that can't be talked about without stepping on toes. That's why I approached it from the angle of "protocols". That is my word for the "laws of nature" that science has worked out over the centuries, but it is also my word for "morality". Morality is not something that is invented by humans--it is bigger than ourselves, just as a culture or a society or even a household is bigger than us yet contains us. Morality is the protocol for getting along with each other in a crowded, chaotic world. It is as simple as washing your hands after using the toilet and covering your mouth when you cough. Or it is as complicated as the definition and purpose of something like marriage.

When working with morality, I'd use the illustration of an electron probability cloud more than a "line drawn in the sand". It is impossible to follow protocol precisely. You're going to step on toes here and there. Crap is going to happen (can I say that?). When it comes to a perfect marriage, you're taking a chance even if you love your spouse forever. However, there is a very definite diference between those who are trying to adhere to protocol and those who have just thrown it to the wind and are doing as they wilt.

Where I live, gay marriage is legal. I know a few couples who have tried it. I don't know any who have stayed together longer than a few years. Granted, I know a lot of straight couples who didn't last that long either. It all comes down to selfishness. Who are they living for, themselves or their spouses or a larger entity that they are a part of? It all comes down to the desire to follow the protocol over one's own desires.

[R.J.]

cerebus wrote: "You say HP is wrong about quarks, but a proton is made up of quarks. Not sure what you are trying to say with your "only two electrons" bit, but using the concept of shells, the first can only contain two, but the next can contain up to 8, so that's already incorrect. If you are somehow referring to Pauli's exclusion principle then it is also incorrect since no two electrons in an atom can share the same quantum state.
Without meaning to be rude, HP's use of "big words" is much more accurate than your explanation. Comparing bios I would also suggest that HP is the better qualified in the area of physics?

Robert wrote:"I think the ensuing conversation about divorce and its consequences is a fitting illustration of this point."
And we are still to receive an argument with supporting evidence to support rejecting same-sex marriage. Would you like to provide one?
..."

Again you ask for evidence, then deny it when it is given.

If you are as familiar with electron clouds as your correction implies, then you would not need to correct me because you already know that an electron has spin of one-half and that only two electrons (of opposite spins) can inhabit one orbital "probability cloud". Yes, there is one “orbit” of two electrons in the first shell, then four “orbits” of two electrons each in the second shell, and so on. Does this not constitute a predictable and orderly protocol? Also, three quarks make a neutron, which changes into a proton when one of the quarks changes its nature and releases an electron and a neutrino. There is no need to use the word “incorrect” in your rebuttal (twice) other than to discourage other readers from considering my viewpoint or assessing for themselves the merit of my explanation.

The correction for the sake of disqualification is not science. Neither is the dismissal of my explanation on account of my lack of listed credentials. It may make you very comfortable knowing that you have dismissed any and all arguments that you don't agree with, but that is not science. That is legalism, which is most often found squarely within the camp of religion.

Good night.

[Heather]

About half of my friends are gay. One couple got married after having been partners for at least fifteen years right before Prop 8 went into effect and had a baby girl via surrogate not too long after that. They are wonderful fathers to her and treat her like a princess.
My cousin was also gay. He was so badly shamed that he turned to drugs and alcohol because he was taught how awful a sin it was to be gay as a child. Ultimately he changed the paradigm of the family and he and his partner were welcomed with open arms. His partner stood by his side for over ten years, helping my cousin to stay clean and sober until he died from leukemia a couple years ago. Because they were not married, my cousin's partner had no benefits and had to pay an estate tax. That is morally wrong.
Clearly these couples have lasted longer than most straight marriages, so why should they be denied the same happiness my husband and I share?
History will illustrate that the religious right were using Biblical reasons to state why interracial couples should not marry. History is repeating itself, and not in a positive light.

[cerebus]

I didn't dismiss your explanation for lack of credentials, I dismissed it because it made no sense, particularly when used in a discussion of same-sex marriage. Yes, I have asked for evidence, and some half-baked attempt to tie atomic physics into some 'protocol' related to marriage is not evidence. By any stretch. Making the explanation incomprehensible and irrelevant does not constitute evidence. If you wish to deny rights to people based on their sexual orientation then you need to do better than that.....i've heard reasons before (such as the "think of the kids"! one), but never atomic physics. Marriage as it stands is different to what it has been in the past, it will change in the future, and if the reasons for those changes make sense, then there is no reason to think that those changes are bad.
I agree with Travis and just wish those who find that the idea of same-sex marriage makes them feel a bit icky would just come out and say it. It's not a reason to deny same-sex marriage, but at least it is an honest answer.
And as for the arguing for other people's rights, i'm amazed that that has even come up, if we need to justify doing something that we feel benefits others that doesn't directly benefit ourselves, then maybe society is as bad as has been claimed.

[cHriS]

Mary wrote: "Sorry Chris but... What exactly does " wrong color" mean?"

http://www.tiffanyraecoaching.com/whi...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-1...

[Travis]

Robert wrote: "It is late and I spent too long at the church tonight, but I'd like to wade into this fray about marriage again.

This is a subject that can't be talked about without stepping on toes. That's why I..."


since I think you're talking crap, it's okay with me if you want to say the actual word.
I can appreciate you not wanting to upset anyone more than you have to, but on page 190 of this thread, I think that ship has sailed and basic honest responses are more appreciated.

Don't believe gay people should marry, fine, then say that. Say why if you want, be honest and we can have a debate.
All this talk of protocols and reversing the polarity of the neutron flow feels weak and disingenuous.
Much as I feel that chris is also talking crap, he's at least talking his own personal crap.

[Mary]

The problem with the argument against same sex marriage is that is based on emotion, so there is no "proof" or logic behind it. Like when I say I hate Jerusalem crickets, I know it's an irrational fear and not logical.
Gay marriage opponents seem to have several arguments.
1. Marriage is between a man and a woman for procreation.
Of course that begs the question, what about couples who can't conceive, don't want children or lose a child? Should they be forced to divorce, since when they have sex it is not to conceive?
2. Gay sex is unnatural.
Well, I have many married and unmarried hetero friends who will admit to engaging in the exact same sex acts as gay couples. So are they secretly gay? Is it okay if they are hetero and married? Seems a like a double standard to me.
3. Its against god's law.
Well, this letter has been around a while but says it better than I could about what's "against god's law"

http://www.cafemom.com/journals/read/...

[Maria]

That letter on cafemom.com is thought provoking. I've never seen it before, and if it was actually a letter to Dr. Laura, I'd like to hear her response.

Actually though, if I'm remembering correctly, isn't it said that when Jesus came to the earth, he did away with the Mosaic Law (which is what all those laws in the letter references) so that it didn't have to be followed any more?

However in the New Testament, 1 Corinthians 6: 9,10 it does mention how it is looked at by the newly formed Christian congregation after the death of Christ:

"9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

I'm not saying that this is a correct viewpoint, or that I agree with it, I'm just pointing out that homosexuality is mentioned in the New Testament, after all those silly, weird laws in the Mosaic Law in Leviticus were not adhered to any more by Jews or Christians.

So if someone doesn't really believe in the Bible, then this won't matter to them, but some people, who are gay, say that they believe in the entire Bible and that it doesn't say they can't be gay. Well, it doesn't say you can't, but it says that you won't "inherit the kingdom of God".

It's in black and white in the Bible, so if you claim that the Bible is entirely the word of God, how do you rationalize that particular scripture?

[Mary]

Maria wrote: "That letter on cafemom.com is thought provoking. I've never seen it before, and if it was actually a letter to Dr. Laura, I'd like to hear her response.

Actually though, if I'm remembering correc..."

Well there in lies the rub for me. I believe the bible was written by men, for men. Nothing more. Study of world history has formed that opinion. From the beginning of time humans have made up stories to explain the world around them, usually crediting gods or demons for the weather or other natural phenomenon they observed. We now know eclipses and droughts don't require human sacrifice to prevent, but we cling to words written by men who had ancient perceptions about our world.
Convenient that the New Testament negates the Old right? But I think one of the 10 Commandments says something about keeping the sabbath... Pretty sure that's right there in black and white. Very, very few people outside orthodox sects actually observe the sabbath anymore. So one law is okay to break, another is not?
The cherry picking that goes on with people who use the bible to justify their actions and prejudice would be funny if it didn't cause harm to others.

[Heather]

I read something very interesting that definitely applies to gay marriage and the constitutionality of trying to abolish it.

"If your religion says you cannot watch Doctor Who on Sundays, then you cannot watch Doctor Who on Sundays. It does not mean that I cannot watch Doctor Who on Sundays because I do not follow that religion; it only states that you can't."

That pretty much sums up my thoughts on the subject.

[Maria]

Mary wrote: " I believe the bible was written by men, for men. Nothing more."

I tend to agree. So I'm not really directing my question of rationalizing this scripture to you (although I do enjoy reading your comments).

My question would be specifically to gay people who DO believe that the Bible is a holy book inspired by God, and who claim to be a follower of it - how do they get around the pretty plain language in 1 Corinthians?

Cherry-picking or not, it IS written in the Bible, and they claim to believe ALL of the Bible.... get where I'm going? I really doubt I'll get much of a response, because there really is not one that makes any sense.

Also, BTW, the 10 Commandments (in Exodus - the Old Testament) was actually part of the Mosaic Law that was supposedly done away with. That doesn't mean it's ok to lie, steal, kill, etc. If the law Jesus taught (love your fellow man and treat others as you would yourself) is followed, naturally you wouldn't have to be told not to commit those specific "sins".

[Maria]

Heather said: "If your religion says you cannot watch Doctor Who on Sundays, then you cannot watch Doctor Who on Sundays. It does not mean that I cannot watch Doctor Who on Sundays because I do not follow that religion; it only states that you can't."

Thank you! That's exactly it. And everyone who claims to "follow that religion" has to adhere to ALL of it's rules. And if you're only going to follow the rules that fit in with your lifestyle, then you can't claim to be a member.

So don't claim to be a member of a Christian religion, who claims that the ENTIRE Bible is a guide for us to live by and that was inspired by God - and then say that it's ok to be gay.

The Bible, as I've pointed out before, doesn't say that - it says that 'men who have sex with men will not inherit God's kingdom'. Plain and simple.

So have the guts to say, "I'm gay and I don't care what the Bible says", don't try to force your lifestyle to be condoned by a book that obviously condemns it.

[Travis]

Maria wrote: "That letter on cafemom.com is thought provoking. I've never seen it before, and if it was actually a letter to Dr. Laura, I'd like to hear her response.

Actually though, if I'm remembering correc..."

Probably the same way they rationalize the bits about slavery being okay and you shouldn't eat shellfish or figs.

[Maria]

Travis said: "Probably the same way they rationalize the bits about slavery being okay and you shouldn't eat shellfish or figs."

Again, part of that Mosaic Law that was done away with. The scripture in 1 Cor. was AFTER that.

People keep comparing the rule about not being gay to those rules. There was no "Christian" religion when those shellfish and slavery laws were in effect. Those were laws for the Israelites coming out of Egypt.

I'm talking about the Christian religions, who are not required to adhere to the Mosaic Law, only the New Testament principles. One of which is in 1 Cor 6:9-10.

I guess what I'm looking for, and probably won't get, is someone gay (or straight who thinks it's ok to be gay) to say that they DO realize it's condemned in the Bible, but that they choose to do it anyway. And that since Christian religions use the Bible as their rulebook, it is impossible for them to claim to be a member, since the members are supposed to follow the rules.

I just can't stand hypocrisy - and to me, that's exactly what it is when someone doesn't think that the rules of whatever religion or organization they claim to belong to don't apply to them for some reason or that they only have to follow the rules that condone their lifestyle.

[Travis]

Maria wrote: "Heather said: "If your religion says you cannot watch Doctor Who on Sundays, then you cannot watch Doctor Who on Sundays. It does not mean that I cannot watch Doctor Who on Sundays because I do not..."

I thought the mormons were bad with that no coffee thing, but what church is it that won't let you watch Doctor Who?
I'm avoiding those guys like the plague.

[Maria]

Me too. I need my coffee, and would shrivel up and die without my nightly glass(es) of wine. So..... (drum roll).....I can't be a Mormon, since I don't want to follow their rules. How simple is that?

And Mormon's unlike the other "Christian" churches acually MAKE people leave their organization if they are caught breaking the rules. Good for them. Gotta walk the walk.

[[deleted user]]

Maria wrote: "So have the guts to say, "I'm gay and I don't care what the Bible says", don't try to force your lifestyle to be condoned by a book that obviously condemns it. "

Some claim to be Christians and don't condemn homosexuality. Certain churches, like the United Methodist Church, are becoming reconciling churches. Some don't believe every word that is written in the Bible to be the Divine word of God, yet the follow basic ideas allegedly espoused by Christ. Loving one's enemy, etc....

Just as I don't think it's appropriate for people to tell one another who can marry and who can't, I don't think it's appropriate to tell people they must believe in x, y, and z else they're not Christians and can't claim to be.

[Mary]

I do not claim to be a Christian, nor am I homosexual. I just do not like when members of any religion use that religion's moral code to justify denying others legal rights. Marriage should be a civil contract under the state gov for anyone who wishes to enter into it. The religious ceremony is then up to the individual and their organization. If a church I went to did not want to marry me, then they obviously do not feel I should be a member and I would leave.
But religious organizations should not have a say in how the laws of the state are formed, except as individual voting members. If they want to donate to a political platform, candidate or ballot proposition, then they no longer should have tax exempt status.

[Maria]

Shannon said: "Just as I don't think it's appropriate for people to tell one another who can marry and who can't, I don't think it's appropriate to tell people they must believe in x, y, and z else they're not Christians and can't claim to be."

I totally agree that no one should be able to tell people what they can and cannot claim to be. I just get curious about how they explain why they feel they can do so.

So, ok, someone doesn't believe in the entire Bible. That's fine IF they are a member of one of those churches you mention that doesn't claim to do so, that says that's ok.

But, if they claim to belong to one of the churches that does believe in the entire Bible, then they can't decide that some of the scriptures do not apply to them.

That's not to say they can't be a spiritual person and have their own personal beliefs. It just means that they when they say, "I belong to the Catholic (or whichever)church, but I don't go along with all the teachings of that church.", I personally find that to be hypocritical. How can you be a member of something and not obey all their rules?

People can do anything they want, and I'm certainly not here to tell anyone they "can't" do something. But I can give my opinion of what they do, just as they can do the same for me.

Of course, no one, especially not the government, should be able to tell someone who they can marry, as long as both are of legal age. But Christians believe that God has the right to tell them what to do, right? He did, yet they don't obey and still think it's ok. And I don't think that's ok.

[Maria]

Mary said: "But religious organizations should not have a say in how the laws of the state are formed, except as individual voting members. If they want to donate to a political platform, candidate or ballot proposition, then they no longer should have tax exempt status."

I totally agree with this. And if two people of the same sex love each other and want to get married, they should be allowed to. But if that breaks a rule of the religion they belong to, then they can't be a member of that particular religion. And if the God they claim to believe in has a problem with the way they've lived their lives, that is a personal matter between them and their God.

I have absolutely no problem with anyone being gay, married, or whatever. The thing I can't seem to get my head around is the claims that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality. It clearly does. But if a person, church, religion etc is ok with that, then good for them. Just don't tell me it doesn't say what I can read for myself that it does say - in every translation I've come across.

I'm not being rude or judgemental, I am truly interested in hearing the reasons people have for believing the way they do.

[Maria]

Mary said: "If a church I went to did not want to marry me, then they obviously do not feel I should be a member and I would leave."

And that's what I would do as well. I have a problem with those who don't leave - they say I don't care what the rules are of this church, I say I'm a member and I don't have to follow them. Huh???

[Mary]

Maria wrote: "Mary said: "If a church I went to did not want to marry me, then they obviously do not feel I should be a member and I would leave."

And that's what I would do as well. I have a problem with thos..."

Very true. I heard a pastor once say, "Christians are people who are not themselves on Sunday." I thought it was funny and accurate.

[Travis]

Maria wrote: "Mary said: "If a church I went to did not want to marry me, then they obviously do not feel I should be a member and I would leave."

And that's what I would do as well. I have a problem with thos..."

I've never gotten the idea of belonging to a religion then pick and choosing what parts of the bible you want to follow.
If the word of god is just a list of mild suggestions it seems pretty pointless to me.

If religious folk won't follow their own users manual, then stop using it make the rest of us do stuff.

[Maria]

I'm with you, Travis. It takes a lot of courage sometimes for people to stand up and say they don't believe, especially if they were raised a certain way and it would cause family and friends to shun them.

Maybe they feel that if they admit it to themselves and (horrors!) say it out loud, a lightning bolt will come down and destroy them.

Believe, don't believe, it's all a personal thing. Just don't claim to believe, then live your life otherwise.

[Mary]

A world without science is no world at all, but a world without religion there will be no faith...I would choose to die saying that I believe in God and that God made science

[Maria]

Then why doesn't he make a "science" that can cure cancer? Why are we struggling with this when he could just "make the science" for it?

[Travis]

Maria wrote: "Then why doesn't he make a "science" that can cure cancer? Why are we struggling with this when he could just "make the science" for it?"

You gotta wonder why god made a world that is geared to killing his 'children.'

[Mary]

God allowed us to come to earth at our own free will...he wants us to make our own choices and to experience our own ideas not His. We know the right, but if he tells us what to do what have we learn? And about cancer...everyone hates it but we cant help it. We are trying to find a cure, it cant happen over night it takes years to perfect.

[Maria]

I think the general Christian belief is that we did that to ourselves - the Adam and Eve story.

I know, we've been down that road here!