Was Jesus God?

Quote: boymimbo

Your argument fall apart when you bring two people into the equation that were not motivated by God: Stalin and Hitler. Both justified evil and killed off millions for economical and racist reasons that had nothing to do with God's message or anything that was written in a text.

Oh no, I would never say, not being religious means you get everything right or come up with the right moral conclusions. It's just a way to avoid coming up with MORE flawed information about the world rather than less.

Neither do I depend on a divining rod or horoscopes, or tea leaves or a host of lesser known and discarded magical thinking activities.

Quote: Evenbob

And it's happening, secularism
is taking hold worldwide.

Let us all pray this trend reverses or maybe the 21st century will overtake the 20th century as being the bloodiest and most violent in all of human history. Secularism does not have the answer to our happiness, nor does technology or science. God is the only answer and instead of trying to abandon our creator we should all be discussing more in depth the questions of religion, finding common ground, and helping all to see interpretations or understandings of God that go against natural law and reason. This would be so much more helpful than the futile attempt of religious beings aka human beings from euthanizing one of our most important characteristics the search fro wonder, meaning, and ultimate purpose in the this life.

Quote: Nareed

And yet what gets you all worked up is the recognition of civil same sex marriage, not the way government uses fear of terror to invade privacy, or the plight of Middle Eastern refuges in Europe and America, just to name two much worse things.

Did you see a mote in someone's eye?

Correction, what gets YOU worked up is the recognition that the loving relationship between two men or two women is different than the loving relationship between a man and a woman. This common sense distinction it seems to me should be recognized in our language and in law. You keep bringing up the denial of civil rights but we have talked about that before and I am 100% in agreement that the government can and should grant homosexual couples the same rights as married heterosexuals. When we talk about adoption again it is an issue of whether it is best to place a child first in a loving home with a mom and dad before a loving home with two men or two women. I think that makes sense and I haven't heard you or anyone disagree that having a loving mom and dad is the best situation. Again, you are railing against reality and nature not the Church or its teachings.

Quote: boymimbo

Absolutely. I think it's a function of old thinking which is progressing. It will take time. Take heart Nareed that there is one Christian (me) who is with you. I believe strongly in the separation of church and state and granting LGBT equal rights and treatments. Mind you that the separation of church and state is not sanctioned in the bible yet I support that separation nonetheless as being necessary to support freedom, including religious freedom and freedom of expression, which also protects us.

I do not and cannot support church sanctioned gay marriage but I fully support the legal status of two people joining in civil unions recognized by the governments.

Make that two Christians who are with you. I agree with everything boymimbo says in the above post.

Quote: FrGamble

When we talk about adoption again it is an issue of whether it is best to place a child first in a loving home with a mom and dad before a loving home with two men or two women. I think that makes sense and I haven't heard you or anyone disagree that having a loving mom and dad is the best situation.

The best interest for children of course is to have people who are highly invested in the growth and success of the child. Generally, that combination of people is a female mother and male father in a loving home. However, that generality should not preclude gay people or grandparents or even a single parent who will often do a better job than a married heterosexual couple would.

Therefore, as an adoption agency it is far better to evaluate applicants based on their situation and capability to raise the child effectively rather than their sexuality. What the word "effectively" means of course is subject to interpretation, but to categorize a gay couple or even a single parent with a great support system as automatically inferior to a heterosexual couple is wrong.

I will let boymimbo's brief rebuttal of Nareed's attack of the two great commandments stand especially because it sounds like Nareed would not be interested in hearing my take and mimbo does a good job. Instead let me comment on Nareed's three great commandments.

Quote: Nareed

You want some simple tenet for ethics?

Respect other people's judgment and the choices they make for themselves based on it.

While respecting is important I would also add understand and correct and discuss if necessary. It is not ethical to allow someone to persist in error or ignorance. There are ways in charity to help people come to know truth without condemning them or being mean. This would require you to love the other person, even the stranger, because it is much easier to just use the word "respect" to equal ignore the other person and don't worry about their choices as long as they don't affect you. That type of sweeping under the rug mentality leads to disaster, the end of civil discussion, and is not the loving or truthful thing to do.

Quote:

Do not live for the sake of others, nor ask that others live for your sake.

The paradox of life is that we are never more happy then when we are serving or helping others. Selfishness and living only for oneself is a sure path to sadness and loneliness. While we do not ask that others live for our sake it is important to recognize our need for help and not rob someone of the opportunity to serve us through some false pride or idea of self-reliance.

Quote:

Everyone is different. While there is a lot of overlap and there are even some universal traits, there is no single way of doing things, or one path in life that applies to everyone without exception.

This is just not true. Love is the path that applies to everyone without exception. True love respects peoples differences, helps people, serves them, challenges and corrects at times, forgives, and is given to all without exception. Love is the greatest universal tenet for ethics and is absolutely universal and applies to every human person.

Quote: boymimbo

The best interest for children of course is to have people who are highly invested in the growth and success of the child. Generally, that combination of people is a female mother and male father in a loving home. However, that generality should not preclude gay people or grandparents or even a single parent who will often do a better job than a married heterosexual couple would.

Therefore, as an adoption agency it is far better to evaluate applicants based on their situation and capability to raise the child effectively rather than their sexuality. What the word "effectively" means of course is subject to interpretation, but to categorize a gay couple or even a single parent with a great support system as automatically inferior to a heterosexual couple is wrong.

I agree and so would the Catholic Adoption agencies I know. There are many, many loving heterosexual couples looking to adopt and even in holding a high standard and rejecting many that apply there is no shortage.

Quote: FrGamble

Correction, what gets YOU worked up is the recognition that the loving relationship between two men or two women is different than the loving relationship between a man and a woman.

What gets me angry is taking an inessential distinction and using it as a weapon to beat other people.

Quote:

This common sense distinction it seems to me should be recognized in our language and in law.

Any differentiated legal treatment, even if only in name at the start, invariably ends up setting second-class citizenship for one group or another.

Does a book of Hebrew myths thousands of years old justify the mistreatment under the law of a single person?

Quote:

You keep bringing up the denial of civil rights but we have talked about that before and I am 100% in agreement that the government can and should grant homosexual couples the same rights as married heterosexuals.

That's not what you said above.

I don't care how much it pains you to hear this: separate but equal is not equal.

Quote: FrGamble

. When we talk about adoption again it is an issue of whether it is best to place a child first in a loving home with a mom and dad before a loving home with two men or two women. I think that makes sense and I haven't heard you or anyone disagree that having a loving mom and dad is the best situation. Again, you are railing against reality and nature not the Church or its teachings.

Bullshit. Gay couples don't consider themselves second class choices when there isn't a heterosexual couple.

You've heard someone disagree.

Quote: Nareed

What gets me angry is taking an inessential distinction and using it as a weapon to beat other people.

To be honest I am a little surprised to hear you say that the distinction between men and women is inessential.

Quote:

Any differentiated legal treatment, even if only in name at the start, invariably ends up setting second-class citizenship for one group or another.

I'm not impressed by sweeping statements that are not true and are solely based on past results. Is this the sole reason why you don't think a different name used to better describe a homosexual couple is wrong? Oh wait you used the tired example of separate but equal below, we'll get to that.

Quote:

That's not what you said above.

That is what I think.

Quote:

I don't care how much it pains you to hear this: separate but equal is not equal.

It pains me because it is not reasonable or correct to use that phrase in this case, but it is painful especially to African Americans. By using that phrase you are equating something that is truly inessential to who we are, namely our skin color, with something that actually makes us different biologically, emotionally, culturally, spiritually, and effects how we communicate, feel, and think. Gender is not skin deep, it goes to the core of who we are. As the name of the site reminds us of Diversity training you might benefit from remembering that not everyone is the same, we should recognize and respect their differences and treat them equally. I think this coincides with one of your aforementioned tenets of ethics.