(May 29, 2011 at 9:29 am)Zenith Wrote: I thought about saying something upon the subject of marriage too.
First off, I totally disagree with religious marriage. This doesn't mean that I would try to force this view upon somebody, it's just that I consider it stupid: Two people are not 'married' when the priest/pastor says whatever he says, but when the two people sign in the documents, and you don't need a priest/pastor for a celebration. Also, whom the government decides to marry is not my problem. Even if it's about marriage with animals (e.g. dog, goat, etc. which seem to be legalized in some countries): if the majority wants it, then I don't care if the government implements it. The same with polygamy and polyandry.

As about gay people and religion, I see as totally stupid for gay people to want a religious marriage, and more absurd for the government to force churches to marry them. I also think it's absurd to have gay priests and gay pastors: you know, why the hell would a gay man want to become a priest/pastor/imam/rabbi, if his own doctrine/faith/whatever is totally against it? (well, the churches should do what they want, my opinion, but I believe the government should not force this thing on them)

I don't think any gay people are advocating religious marriage, they just want the legal benefits for them and their partners that marriage brings. And I agree, I don't know why gay people want anything to do with a doctrine that condemns their lifestyle.

(May 29, 2011 at 9:43 am)FaithNoMore Wrote: I don't think any gay people are advocating religious marriage, they just want the legal benefits for them and their partners that marriage brings. And I agree, I don't know why gay people want anything to do with a doctrine that condemns their lifestyle.

Ive heard that argument before from fundies; "Teh gheys will force our church to marry them!!1!1!"

#1 - What makes you think your church is fabulous enough to host a gay wedding?
#2 - What makes you think that a gay couple want homophobes present during their ceremony?
#3 - Gays can be Christian and non-christian alike. They cherry pick the bible JUST LIKE YOU DO.

(May 28, 2011 at 10:31 am)Cinjin Cain Wrote: I can't speak for Adrian, but quantifying progress is very easy in this case. Peaceful co-existence of the entire world - no matter your race, your sexual orientation, your nationality or anything else -- that is the goal. Anything that moves us closer to that goal is progress. Giving gays and lesbians the same civil rights that you currently enjoy is progress. The majority of people who don't see that are most always religious people.

Peaceful co-existence? So everything dies, no matter its race, 'sexual orientation', nationality, or anything else?

My hope is that one day: people stop using the word 'rights', civil or barbaric or ticklish they claim them to be.

Quote:Christianity inherently slows progress. You see, most of you people believe that "god hates fags" and because of that homosexuals don't deserve the happiness that you deserve. However, your definition of progress probably hit its peak in the Dark Ages when the hand of god kept blinders on the human race and 99% of the population were sheep. Or are you better than that?

Actually, christianity does not inherently slow 'progress of peaceful co-existence' whether you consider that death or some level of activity past that. The "Dark Ages" populace was kept in check not by God but by incessantly warring feudal lords. Muslims had themselves a right golden age including technological advancement and vast country... but I suppose they inherently slowed progress towards this sickening goal of yours due to the heavy hand of God?? :Sleepy:

---

FaithnoMore Wrote:I don't think any gay people are advocating religious marriage, they just want the legal benefits for them and their partners that marriage brings. And I agree, I don't know why gay people want anything to do with a doctrine that condemns their lifestyle.

I condemn their lifestyle too: hating yourself because someone interpreted the bible to imply that god seriously does not approve when clearly it is only written not to lie with a man as one would a woman (it's kind of hard to do otherwise, frankly)? Poor sods need to garner some reading comprehension

something's wrong: I've been notified by email that Cinjin Cain has replied to Aerzia Saerules Arktuos, but the post does not exist here. where is it??
It is not the first time such thing happened. Did he delete the post or some error occurred?

---

Cinjin Cain Wrote:Giving gays and lesbians the same civil rights that you currently enjoy is progress. The majority of people who don't see that are most always religious people.

Now I know that it is a bit deviated from the main subject... but, I live in an ex-communist country, and most people (or at least, most [male] men) here see homosexuality as very misplaced and disgusting and the word "gay" sounds ridiculous, whether they are religious, agnostic, atheistic, or anti-religion. And when I say "homosexuality"/"gay", I mean male with male; it seems that lesbianism doesn't look ugly, at least to most men. And, from what I've heard, when the country was still communist, homosexuality was unlawful and those who were found practicing it were being thrown to jail.

What I've found in wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism_a...osexuality Wrote:Homosexuality has sometimes been labeled by communists as "one of the effects of capitalist sociality" and the product of the bourgeoisie

As for communism nowadays, I found:

Quote:Currently, none of the six existing communist states recognize same-sex marriages, civil unions, or registered partnerships. There are also no anti-discrimination laws in place, but homosexuality is legal in each country.

By the way, Communism was not religiously based. On the contrary, it taught the theory of evolution, was atheistic, and quite anti-religion (and obviously, it despised religion).
Two links about communism and religion, if somebody is interested, which I've just found:
http://www.lotsofessays.com/viewpaper/1685228.html
http://www.nocommunism.com/communism-and...-religion/

(May 29, 2011 at 3:27 pm)Aerzia Saerules Arktuos Wrote: Actually, christianity does not inherently slow 'progress of peaceful co-existence' whether you consider that death or some level of activity past that. The "Dark Ages" populace was kept in check not by God but by incessantly warring feudal lords. Muslims had themselves a right golden age including technological advancement and vast country... but I suppose they inherently slowed progress towards this sickening goal of yours due to the heavy hand of God?? :Sleepy:

---

Actually Christianity DID slow down progress in Europe. I find it funny that you post about the European feudalism, but fail to mention that the Arabs/muslims were just as feudal during that time...yet you claim they had a golden age.

Well, they did..and thats because the prevailing religious authorities found nothing wrong with scientific though in the Arab world. The Europeans Christian leaders, however, looked upon science as a threat of a return to the pagan ways of the old Roman empire, and therefore tried to ban it as much as possible.



do a bit more research the next time you post on the middle ages.

(May 30, 2011 at 4:21 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote: Actually Christianity DID slow down progress in Europe. I find it funny that you post about the European feudalism, but fail to mention that the Arabs/muslims were just as feudal during that time...yet you claim they had a golden age.

Well, they did..and thats because the prevailing religious authorities found nothing wrong with scientific though in the Arab world. The Europeans Christian leaders, however, looked upon science as a threat of a return to the pagan ways of the old Roman empire, and therefore tried to ban it as much as possible.



do a bit more research the next time you post on the middle ages.

She's not the only one who's heard about an islamic Golden Age.
Read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Age_of_Islam

As about Europe, they had military developments. And little things like windmill, wheelbarrow, etc. - which were most surely invented by peasants, not lords or 'scholars'.
Yeah, it seems that the banks have also invented in western europe in the middle-ages (And here's what I've found now).

The Church obviously didn't want the people to study the pagan philosophies, or anything of the greek pagans. Regarding the pagan philosophies and the pagan thought, the reason they were forbidden is quite clear: they would have harmed a lot the Church's authority and political interest (it would have been a source of heresy and even apostasy). In rest, I believe there was a quite total disinterest for science dwelling in Europe, rather than an oppression of it. The European lords seemed to have been interested more in taking others' lands and riches, rather than staying at peace and caring for the people and trying to develop the country. And the Catholic Church was more interested in taking people's money. Anyway, do you know a great interest for progress in India, from the Caspian sea eastwards, the region of Mongolia and other pagan countries in the middle ages? (except the Japanese and perhaps the Chinese, they might have had some developments, but I'm not very sure now).

As about the Christian Roman Empire (and the continuance in the Byzantine Empire) they did have interest in culture and art (and they also had the Justinian Code - a code of laws, for whom 3 older codes were used).
Also,

History of the Byzantine Empire, by A.A. Vasiliev Wrote:The outstanding figure in the cultural movement of the tenth century was
Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, who did much for the intellectual progress
of Byzantium, not only by protecting education, but also by contributing many original
writings. Constantine left all government affairs to Romanus Lecapenus, and devoted
the greater part of his time to the field which interested him. He succeeded in
becoming the heart of an intense literary and scholarly movement to which he
contributed greatly by active participation. He wrote much, induced others to write,
and attempted to raise the education of his people to a higher level. His name is closely
connected with the erection of many magnificent buildings; he was passionately
interested in art and music, and spent large sums of money on the compilation of
anthologies from ancient writers.

And another thing I've just found:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_e...literature Wrote:The writings of Classical antiquity never ceased to be cultivated in Byzantium. Therefore, Byzantine science was in every period closely connected with ancient philosophy, and metaphysics.[123] Although at various times the Byzantines made magnificent achievements in the application of the sciences (notably in the construction of the Hagia Sophia), after the 6th century Byzantine scholars made few novel contributions to science in terms of developing new theories or extending the ideas of classical authors.[124] Scholarship particularly lagged during the dark years of plague and the Arab conquests, but then during the so-called Byzantine Renaissance at the end of the first millennium Byzantine scholars re-asserted themselves becoming experts in the scientific developments of the Arabs and Persians, particularly in astronomy and mathematics.[125]

In the final century of the Empire, Byzantine grammarians were those principally responsible for carrying, in person and in writing, ancient Greek grammatical and literary studies to early Renaissance Italy.[126] During this period, astronomy and other mathematical sciences were taught in Trebizond; medicine attracted the interest of almost all scholars.[127]

In the field of law, Justinian I's reforms had a clear effect on the evolution of jurisprudence, and Leo III's Ecloga influenced the formation of legal institutions in the Slavic world.

And other interesting things:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_literature

The Byzantine/Roman Empire had kept the values for culture of the old Roman Empire, but the western Europe had before centuries fallen to barbarians - whom did not not value culture and stuff. If the Roman Empire had never been devastated by barbarians (and later, by muslims) then perhaps all Europe would have progressed much faster.

(May 30, 2011 at 4:21 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote:

(May 29, 2011 at 3:27 pm)Aerzia Saerules Arktuos Wrote: Actually, christianity does not inherently slow 'progress of peaceful co-existence' whether you consider that death or some level of activity past that. The "Dark Ages" populace was kept in check not by God but by incessantly warring feudal lords. Muslims had themselves a right golden age including technological advancement and vast country... but I suppose they inherently slowed progress towards this sickening goal of yours due to the heavy hand of God?? :Sleepy:

---

Actually Christianity DID slow down progress in Europe. I find it funny that you post about the European feudalism, but fail to mention that the Arabs/muslims were just as feudal during that time...yet you claim they had a golden age.

Progress towards *peaceful co-existence* is slowed by warring? I don't see it.

Quote:Well, they did..and thats because the prevailing religious authorities found nothing wrong with scientific though in the Arab world. The Europeans Christian leaders, however, looked upon science as a threat of a return to the pagan ways of the old Roman empire, and therefore tried to ban it as much as possible.



do a bit more research the next time you post on the middle ages.

You confuse me. I say 'the arabs were also religious, but they had a golden age', and you say 'I disagree, the arabs were also religious, but they had a golden age'... are you high today?

(May 29, 2011 at 5:49 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(May 28, 2011 at 10:20 pm)Cinjin Cain Wrote:

(May 28, 2011 at 9:56 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(May 28, 2011 at 7:00 pm)Cinjin Cain Wrote: My posts stand for all to scrutinize, and I always come out justified in the end.

rofl
C'mon now CC.

back that up. Post #s please.

"How do you make that work? I presume you have some idea or you'd believe something else?" - from here

Keep it in this thread you tool. Argue the point at hand. You made the claim in THIS thread - now back it up in THIS thread. I'm not defending every post I've ever made in every thread I've ever posted in, just because you don't have a valid point.

Cinjin Cain Wrote:Peaceful co-existence of the entire world - no matter your race, your sexual orientation, your nationality or anything else -- that is the goal.

I wonder how religion fits into your anti-religion policy .
Or you would fight for the rights of Islam and Judaism and Christianity? If yes, then how would you cause a peaceful co-existence between muslims and jews?

Quote:Keep it in this thread you tool. Argue the point at hand. You made the claim in THIS thread - now back it up in THIS thread. I'm not defending every post I've ever made in every thread I've ever posted in, just because you don't have a valid point.

Sorry for interrupting and getting into your discussion, but... do you really enjoy a useless fight with fr0d0?

(May 31, 2011 at 10:32 am)Zenith Wrote:

Cinjin Cain Wrote:Peaceful co-existence of the entire world - no matter your race, your sexual orientation, your nationality or anything else -- that is the goal.

I wonder how religion fits into your anti-religion policy .
Or you would fight for the rights of Islam and Judaism and Christianity? If yes, then how would you cause a peaceful co-existence between muslims and jews?

I think you missed my point there Zenith. I would do away with all religion and thus bring the world much closer to peaceful co-existence.

Cinjin Cain Wrote:Keep it in this thread you tool. Argue the point at hand. You made the claim in THIS thread - now back it up in THIS thread. I'm not defending every post I've ever made in every thread I've ever posted in, just because you don't have a valid point.

Quote:Sorry for interrupting and getting into your discussion, but... do you really enjoy a useless fight with fr0d0?

Yeah sometimes. Other times I'd rather avoid it, but if the man won't let it go I'm going to engage him ... at least while it still amuses me. The man is crazy. It's best not to take most anything he says seriously.