Originally posted by ponybilt@Sep 22 2004, 12:23 AM
Suaige, I don't understand the dissonance in some of your stances:
hm definately I seem very contradictory. I guess just goes to show I am not absolutest in everything.
"I believe in religious absolutes..." and "I dont agree with extremism in ANYTHING."
I don't think absolutes and extremes are the same. Some laws of God will never change. But that does not mean that I need to use them to pull off another inquisition and torture people to join the church. A point was made that the current situation is deserving payback for centuries of atrocities done in the name of Christ. I can see that. I too have how such a mentality can be wedged into christianity, much the same way people are being beheaded in the name of Islam. It is in my opinion nothing but evil being perfomred in the name of Christ.
" I am pro-life and believe abortion is murder" and "sacrifice of one may be necessary and acceptable."
I am not so absolutest on abortion as to say that we must allow the mother to die with the technology we have if abortrion is the only way to save her life. But I do believe many people use it as a form of birth control, I know that it is seen that way in China I have talked to them.
"I am opposed to the welfare state form of govt" and "I consider this left wing" (The biggest welfare programs are promoted and administered for the benefit of corporations by the conservative right wing, but maybe you didn't know this).
some exapmles please. I am interested, becuase know I do not know what you are referring to.
"I am opposed the promotion of special status by sex. pref." and "marriage being the obvious exemption"
I think this argument has more or less died but there was a big push to get sexual orientation added as a special class for programs like affirmative action. I do not support such. ----------Hm - want to stately clearly. I support laws that prevent discrimination in the work place, hate crime and the like. This seems to be ultimately contradictory as I support the ban on gay marriage. I feel this is a bigger issue with more sides. Yet I am still torn, because I am sure that many will use it to support their hatred, bashing, and barbarism for lack of a better word. Its kind of a catch 22 in my mind. can't likely have it either way with out the other being stuck on.
Additionally, if marriage is a religious contract, then it shouldn't be endorsed by the government. People of faith can get married in a church, but in order to recieve all the gov't privileges, everyone should all have to go through civil union, IMHO, thereby allowing all couples the ability to receive those benefits. Or maybe just eliminate all the marriage benefits completely -- in this country you cannot offer benefits to one group of people and not another.
What is IMHO. Interesting argument. I stated that family not marriage was institued of God and you can't rightly have it as I described with out marriage. Which as I am sure you have deducted I believe was also started by God. We have definatley developed a system of convenience. ------ and sure you can give benes to one group and not another in our country. As a white, healthy, non-military child, no-corporate child, male, you know how much govt assistance I qualify for and how many scholarships I qualify for. Almost none. It was finally deemed reverse discrimination as far as scholarships go. So yeah happens all the time.
And then the simply offensive:
"I am pro-life and believe abortion is murder not a form of birth control." What makes you think that women use this as a form of birth control?? Do you really believe that a woman would undergo a major operation as a form of birth control? Abortion is an option should an accident occur -- not an alternative to a condom.
I am honestly happy to hear that you do not consider it a form of birth control, but do you really think there have been over 35 million accidents in the US and that stat is 10+ years old. What do you consider an accident other than unintended pregnancy. Thats not an accident. It is the consequences of very specific acctions. Its not like a woman is going to get pregant with out knowing it, unless she is so blasted under then influence that she has no idea what she's are doing, but then again that barring the rare exception is a choice she made too. But that is a whole nother topic maybe we really don't need to breach too far.
and Yes, I have talked so some who have and they did not consider it an operation if it is done early enough. One even described it as minimally intrusive. No cutting of mom, no stitches, just some stretching and away you go. The perfect way out.
One other really good point was made......., oh yes,
marriage in Genesis. Quite interesting. Well there are several accounts of polygyny in the old testament up through the Law of Moses. Guess we need more info on this topic. The conditions that make it acceptable or not acceptable certainly are not explained there. And not continued in the new testament law either. As for the allowance of what we would consider incest, well don't really know what to say about that other than I am an inbreed so I guess I fit in ( g-g-grandparents were 1st cousins :huh: ) by the way impressive list of scriptures. Out of curiosity, own research of found info?
anti-miscegenation -- cohabitation of a white person and a person of another race.
really? Intersting, learn new tidbits every day.
Never thought of hetrosexual marriage as special status for them. good point.
Oh and yes, there are
mistranslations in the Bible it even contradicts itself on numbers and the like that while small things and pretty unimportant proves the point it happened. Were it not for some of the confusion as to what finally got into the bible and what didn't, and the translation over time, we would probably have a lot fewer christian religions. And the whole death of the apostles thing, that really put a dent in keeping things organized for a couple of hundred years. Then the whole doctinal change arguements, before or after 325 both??? I do not hold the bible infallible as some do, it is none the less valuable. I believe it to be primarily accurate and sufficient to be used especially when couple with the guidance of the Holy Ghost. I find it interesting too that some of the most debated topics seem to me to be some of the clearest. go figure.
Oh there was a comment about us praying to a ghost. I always thought with the evil connotations we associate with ghosts in the western world Holy Spirit might be a better choice of words even though I am accustomed to Holy Ghost. Just a small point, I pray to my Father in Heaven, answers come through the Holy Ghost. I say try it till you understand it, you might like it. It is really quite an amazing experience you just don't understand with out first hand experience.
a thought on church and state. I wish I had original refrences but I don't. The whole separation of church and state. Start of ammendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion was to prevent a state sponsored church. As shown by Jacksons reply to a woman who heard the country was started one. "There will be an effectual wall of seperation between the church and state." While the first says we will pass no laws about religion and the 2nd says we will stay separate, but neither deny the mixing of
religious principles with government. quote was to the effect, this goverment must be over a law abiding citizenry who follow christain principles as it is wholly inadequate to govern any other. This isn't exact but the meaning is the same. There is an ad campaign here that has used this and I have heard other similar quotes else where that this was not the founding fathers intend at all to have a wholly secualr govt. but one that didn't interfere religion or establish a state church. It seems that many try to stretch it to the point as to say anything that resembles religous belief or the mixing in anyway of church and state as being forbidden. Such as I am not allowed to read the bible on my own time at school, or even say a personal silent prayer. Both have been challenged in court.
Please clarify. Thanks.
[post=256979]Quoted post[/post]
