Link648099 said:
Though humans seek happiness, which is a subjective awareness of a given state, they also seek, once they are made aware of it, blessedness, which is an objective reality independent of any given state of being. To be blessed is to be something that being happy can never give, as happiness never lasts. I am personally blessed in many ways right now, though my happiness is pretty low.
Only through a deity can a state of blessedness be found. Since, as you say, all humans are equal, we cannot be blessed by those on the same level as us, although we can be made happy.
The above quote is an opinion. It is stated as fact even though it is the opinion you derive from your interpretation of your religion. It is not a truth, but a gargantuan assumption you make to try to define one. Please do not disrespect a discussion by making a statement as fact which may or may not apply to all the people involved in that discussion and may or may not represent a fact.
Link648099 said:
I believe that in your assessment of happiness as the state to be desired first and foremost, you forgot about blessedness, something which was a state the ancients were quite aware of and openly sought, but has generally been forgotten in our materialistic society.
Again, you are stating things in ways which support a worldview derived from your religion. You discuss the ancients as though they are more advanced than us in order to bolster your argument. The fact is that the ancients did not know half of the scientific truths we have discovered and thus are not a very convincing source of truth in general. You also assume that because the ancients desired a state of happiness derived in deity it was a holy blessedness instead of a way to define what they currently understood of the world and also a truth from which they could derive power in their society. Given mans corruptibility I would bet that the ancients derived the following from reliance on their deity:
1. Explanations of unexplained things for which we have found explanations
2. Power
3. Guidelines for society based on what they thought the deity wanted so that they could survive in fear of its wrath
Also, how have you demonstrated that modern society relies upon God to form its most successful ventures?
Link648099 said:
If both of us were only to argue from happiness, then yes, I'd easily agree with the majority of your post. But I come to the table with the knowledge of being blessed, which you have to account for, as I (and millions of others who claim blessedness) are part of the world's societies. This is greater and ultimatly more fulfilling then simply being happy, or satisfied with one's place in life. I may not be happy, but I am content with whatever hand life deals to me.
I argued from the standpoint of the fact that societys original purpose, and the purpose that all societies form, is to enhance the standard of living of the participants of the society. From families to countries made up of United States, the purpose is the same. Societys purpose, as the majority of the world would recognize it, is not to further the edict of some God. Gods edict should forward itself if it has some interaction with this world, should it not? Is it not possible that this blessedness to which you refer is really just your Ego talking, as Freud would say? You are attempting to come up with something that directly correlates your internal view to what exists in society to your morals. God, and this blessedness which no one can understand, both fit the bill pretty conveniently, dont they?
In any case, what does you being content as a result of God have to do with the fact that society wants to better the standard of living of as many people as possible or with the fact that equality does not harm anyone?
Link648099 said:
Why? Because all that is important to me is found in God. It is God's approval I seek, God's will, and God's ways. I find my ultimate worth in God, not in some shaky standard society determines, or even within my own standards.
Which is fine. I have no problem with your reliance on God to define your life. What does this have to do with whether or not society should make everyone equal though?
Link648099 said:
You refuse to factor in religion, the most prominent aspect of human society as far back as we can remember. You must realize that there is something greater out there then happiness, and once that is found, fulfillment will follow.
I factored in religion quite significantly. I said that religion is defined on an individual basis. What I refuse to do is recognize that religion should have some significant control over State affairs. Like I said, we tried that once, and several countries out there still do it today, and it is a complete failure as well as a threat to the stability of the world.
What quantifiable things can we look at that demonstrate that religion has anything to do with the fact that the United States is one of the most stable countries in the world and that equality under the law is one of the reasons for this?
Link648099 said:
There is a man who lives in the apartment above mine. I have gotten to know him over the past few months and have enjoyed our freindship. We watched a Christian movie last night and ordered some pizza. He is single, black, a born again Christian, and gay. I disagree with his homosexuality just as much as I disagree with my own sexual immorality, as I have told you in the past. What has struck me so much about this man is that though the Christian community seems against him, though he does not go to church anymore for fear of rejection, and that our society as a whole does not fully accept his orientation, he is wholly content with his life. He finds his worth not in what society tells him, but in what God through the Bible tells him. This has had a profound impact on me. Not in approving of homosexuality, but in further understanding the grace of God.
And you have never met anyone else who is content with their life? I am content with how I live my life and the choices I have made, and I do not derive it from what God tells me through the Bible. So what significance does this even have with regards to whether or not a State should use religious morality in forming its laws?
The United States recognized early on that it was not religious morality but common sense and openness which truly allowed humanity to flourish. And the results that stem from our constitution of only 2 centuries ago demonstrate this candidly. The State prevented corruption through a separation of powers, it was not a God. We recognized that corruption was bad not because of its moral implications so much as what it did to society. Thus, it was not a moral decision, but a rational one based upon desire to survive. We can call on God to define how states are supposed to run, but when it came down to it we used statistics[how many countries have survived and prospered with religion obsessed movements in their laws], common sense [three corrupt branches of the government working for themselves will counter each other in their desire to gain control], and a little bit of luck to try and figure out how to do it right. I am trying to show you that Society and God are different. We have seen that they should not rely upon one another if society is to survive.
Link648099 said:
I do not think you have considered the power of God enough in your philosophy of life. I know personally that it is a touchy subject for you, and one you have yet to have a serious discussion on it with me yet.
This has nothing to do with my belief or disbelief in God. It has everything to do with the way that society works or fails. I know that if we ban enough things in society our society will fall apart. If we tax too much we will fall apart. If the distance between the rich and the poor is too large, we will fall apart. Our country has agreed already to separate Church and State, so lets keep going with it. We have already learned that mixing the two is disastrous. Thus, our laws cannot be based on religious morality but on the reality of things. The reality of things is that millions of people around the world are attracted to the same sex without control over the fact that they are and they want to have sex with the same sex. Lots of people also like to eat. Lets give them both and I bet you society will work better for all.
Link648099 said:
But I say you are not familiar with the millions who have sacrificed all they hold dear so as to follow God.
Of course I am familiar with them, but this has nothing to do with whether or not Homosexuality/Homosexual Marriage should be allowed in society. These things are needs of the citizens of a society and thus the society should embrace them so as to enhance its original purpose. There are plenty of people who dont sacrifice everything for God, and your system continues to judge them the same as those who have. Heterosexuals can have sex, which is a Sin in your system. If homosexuals are having sex, Im pretty sure its a sin of equal value in your system. Thus, even assuming society and religion are intertwined somehow, society cant ban homosexuality without banning heterosexuality if both sins are equal.
Link648099 said:
The flaw in your argument is that you refuse to acknowledge the involvement of this God in world history, from the individual person up to the nations.
The quoted text above is your opinion. Ive never read in any history book that a war was won because of God or that one society developed faster than another because God swooped down and changed everything. Please stop stating things you are unable to prove as fact and argue with logic rather than smoke and mirrors. You are clearly hiding behind God just like a sketchy internet user hides behind his computer monitor. Whether or not God had anything to do with history has nothing to do with the simple fact that if you give all humans in society (such as homosexuals) the same rights, society will work much much better. I can prove that to you: Look @ U.S. success versus the success of China.
Link648099 said:
From your place I know you cannot tell me a solid yes or no as to whether God (whenever I say this, I am referring to the Judeo-Christian God to those who care) has been involved with human history or not.
Neither can you. You can only state what you believe to be the truth. I recognize your right to believe it, but that still doesnt make society function as well as it would if all homosexuals had the same rights and recognitions. And this fact, simply stated, has absolutely nothing to do with God.
Link648099 said:
You cannot tell me if God really gave the ten commandments to Moses or not. You cannot tell me whether God raised Israel up so the Messiah could be brought into the world. You cannot tell me if Jesus lived, died, and was resurrected so all who choose to could have not just life, but abundant life. These are events, that if true, completly throw your entire argument and worldview off skelter.
They really dont mess with my worldview at all. If they are true that doesnt take away from the scientific fact that equality results in a stable and better society for all. Even if science is just a human construction for analyzing the truths that God has created, our analysis has shown that our society will be better off if we stop persecuting people. Therefore, either way, its the truth.
I might even say that if God created everything, then our tools of analysis must also be created by God, and therefore our conclusions as well. Thus, homosexual marriage is supported by God whether or not God exists or whether or not any of that stuff you just rattled off actually happened. You bring this back to God because it is what you have as the basis for all your truth. But I use logic because I know that it is the basis of truth, even if God exists and did create everything. Because if God exists, I am a product of him and thus so is my logic.
Link648099 said:
And this is why I always bring it back to God between you and me. Either God is or is not the foundation everything else is built upon. If the Judeo-Christian God exists, then sin exists. If sin exists, it is a big problem that must be dealt with by all members of humanity, whatever that sin may be, from murder to sexual immorality, from theft to lying, from hate to envy, and from greed to slothfulness. If this God exists, then to be blessed is greater then to be happy.
The quoted text above is opinion. It has nothing to do with whether or not society would be better off with humans actually allowed to be what they are: equal. Homosexuals cant make their homosexuality disappear. But society is better with equality. We know this.
Link648099 said:
But I say the Christian church has been concerned with these from the beginning. The Christian church in western civilization is responsible for most of the things which most of us hold dear. Hospitals, the modern university, science-based medicine, science itself, morality, ethics, the inherent rights of man, the rule of law, the abolition of slavery, care for the poor and the sick. All these and more are the result of a simple book that has made this world a better place. The ones who have done the most for this poor and bruised present world are also the ones who thought most of the next to come. All the systems of morality and ethics, of the pursuit of the greatest good in which you base your views upon, you can thank the Christian church for all that.
You dont understand my point. I am saying that society is becoming naturally interested in fixing its ailments because it is in its best interests to do so and because when one human puts themselves in the shoes of another human who has a problem, they are empathetic. It has nothing to do with God but with a successful society based around making itself better for those who want to live this way or that and to enhance our standard of living.
Link648099 said:
But I say that I can, and I will bring God in this discussion, because society's supposed rejection of God (I may perhaps disagree with you on this one...you'd be simply amazed how the Christian church has been spreading amongst non-western nations...people are already theorizing it may one day bring down Communist China) does not determine the objective existence (or non-existence) of God. A fringe faction within a nation that does not acknowledge the rule and power of the state government does not cause that government to cease to exist, or to loose it's power and authority. It will of course, if need be, invoke the government's wrath upon itself if it continues to rebel against it.
I did not say that society was rejecting God. I said that society was not deriving its truth from God anymore. Those are two totally different things. People realize that a good society does not function on a religious base. We see a lot of examples even in modernity that demonstrate this lack of functionality. Im pretty sure most people still believe in a God. But they are rational enough to see that its up to them to find the most successful ways to live as common humanity. That includes equality, not suppression.
Link648099 said:
If you were to become familair with Biblical history, you can see that almost every nation mentioned in the Bible, even Israel, rejected and rebelled against God at one point or another. I assure you God's existence was entirely unaffected, and God's moral absolutes still held.
Again, I wasnt implying that everyone was rejecting/rebelling against God. I was implying that society, in its most advanced forms, is no longer derived from God. Your reference is irrelevant to my point.
Link648099 said:
I, as a Christian, know that all injustice will one day be brought to give an account of itself, not to man, but to God.
Injustice definition: An injustice is a violation of a person's rights
Society derives these rights from a constitution and laws. Suppressing any human more than any other, therefore, is an injustice. Society is only able to go off of what it scientifically sees. Inequality must therefore be abolished because we have scientifically seen that it hinders rather than enhances society.
Link648099 said:
That is why, in the face of resistence amongst the majority of my peers and society as a whole, I press on following the standard God has set, not man. You may call this my personal opinion, but I believe I have the evidence to make it an objective fact (hence my following it).
But God never set a standard with regards to homosexuality of which we know. The Bible is unproven. In fact, if homosexuality exists then God must have created it because you state that God created everything. The quoted text above also has nothing to do with whether or not a society would function better with complete equality.
Link648099 said:
One day Greg you will have to deal with the existence or non-existence of this God. I have forced it upon you now and it has revealed weakness in your philosophy.
The above text is opinion. Please do not disrespect me by stating that your truths are more truthful than mine since we both derive them from our own human selves. How society operates has nothing to do with religion, or it should not, as we have demonstrated with the success of our country. Please do not disrespect logic by stating that because you say so your statements have shown weakness in my philosophy. Usually when you have to say something like that, it isnt true.
Link648099 said:
You must account for God within your paradigm if you wish to attain a full worldview based solely off of societies.
God is very much a part of my paradigm. But God and society never interact. Society has had success based not upon God but upon a bunch of things that are not religious at all. And if God had a hand in it, then anything that exists within it, such as homosexuality, is a product of God as well and society should not repress it.
Through and through, you avoid ever addressing the point which you cannot prove: that homosexuality lowers the standard of living of society. Your religious obsessions deny the truth which they also recognize: that inequality is wrong. I do not see Christians arguing that they themselves should be repressed within society as a result of their sins. They certainly arent repressed from what I can tell. So why, even in the religious system you have constructed for yourself, do you justify the repression of homosexuals? Homosexuality and homosexual marriage and gay sex are not mortal sins, which makes them no worse than any of the other sins that non-repressed people make. Why should society suppress my right to love a man and not your right to love a woman, when both are sins of equal value? Address this, and maybe you will get some respect from me over this issue. Whip out more Bible-speak, and I will continue to ignore it as it has no pertinence to the discussion. No matter what religious perspectives we have, we both agree that all humans are equal. I dont see how any religious system that agrees with that would not argue that God, or whatever form of higher power is behind it, would also support equality within society. According to your system, my sin is no worse and no better than your sin. So why are we not both repressed, if society derives itself from God?
I stand by my original point that you chose to completely ignore: Society can never justify the repression of homosexuals as a result of the fact that homosexuals dont do anything to harm other people. It isnt something that dilutes the ability of society to function successfully. This is how we have been operating for a couple hundred years and it is where we are going. I would advise you to get with the program or you might become as repressed as the homosexuals against whom you work.
Lost Fragment said:
1. I am a Christian, albeit a liberal one compared to most. I fully accept the high possibility that, while the bible may have come about due to divine inspiration, it was written by man, who is fallible, corruptible, and very capable of warping things to suit their earthly desires or personal perspectives on what is and isn't right.
2. I don't believe churches should be forced to marry homosexual couples, as it's something that many would perceive to blasphemous. Forcing religions to change their docturnes? No.
3. I do believe with all of my being that homosexuals should be given the same rights as married couples. All you people arguing against homosexual marrage on a federal level do know that homosexual spouses have no family rights in hospitals unless they're part of a will, right? How would you feel if the love of your life was laying in a hospital, dying, and you were barred from saying goodbye to that person simply because of your sex? You have no right to inflict that sort of suffering and heartache on a couple regardless of your beliefs. You are not God.
My friend, I could not agree with you more.
