Why I'm Still a Christian

[abaris]

If the government was out of the marriage business, then everyone would have the same status under the law. We could all enter into the same civil contract. We've made marriage into a legal contract, but that wasn't so in the beginning.

Hopefully you do realize that the concept of marriage is older than christianity.

[pocaracas]

To sum things up, Lek, you're now a catholic.

How in the world did you come to that conclusion?

- No gay marriage
- Marriage is an institution reserved for the church
- Evolution is ok, but Adam&Eve were the first guys with souls and responsible for the initial fall.
- Most of the OT is alegorical/metaphorical, old rules for the peoples living at the time, not applicable to nowadays.

That says catholic all over. You just need to bow down to the pope.

[robvalue]

The thing about gay marriage is that no one is trying to tell the church what they can and can't do as ceremonies in their church. No one is demanding they perform gay marriage ceremonies, or that any gay christians become married.

But in return, christians seem to want to apply their opinion of what should and shouldn't be allowed to other people who share none of their beliefs. We're already godless heathens, what difference does it make if we are gay and get married? What business is it of christianity?

I just created a religion where I think marriage should be between 3 people of the same sex only. Anyone who gets married in any other way is offending me and is not respecting my religion. Is this reasonable? Or should I keep this restriction to myself and my religion?

[The Reality Salesman01]

@Lek
http://youtu.be/0l80Alsiw40

[Lek]

- No gay marriage
- Marriage is an institution reserved for the church
- Evolution is ok, but Adam&Eve were the first guys with souls and responsible for the initial fall.
- Most of the OT is alegorical/metaphorical, old rules for the peoples living at the time, not applicable to nowadays.

That says catholic all over. You just need to bow down to the pope.

I was raised catholic and I'll tell you it takes a lot more than that to be a catholic.

---

The thing about gay marriage is that no one is trying to tell the church what they can and can't do as ceremonies in their church. No one is demanding they perform gay marriage ceremonies, or that any gay christians become married.

But in return, christians seem to want to apply their opinion of what should and shouldn't be allowed to other people who share none of their beliefs. We're already godless heathens, what difference does it make if we are gay and get married? What business is it of christianity?

I just created a religion where I think marriage should be between 3 people of the same sex only. Anyone who gets married in any other way is offending me and is not respecting my religion. Is this reasonable? Or should I keep this restriction to myself and my religion?

I'm talking about how the secular nation of the United States of America has defined marriage since it's beginning. Can this nation decide to change that definition now? I guess so, but I'm against it. Like my previous example of fraternities and sororities; you don't have to forcibly change an institution that is dear to many to afford equal rights to all citizens.

---

Why, then, do you proselityze? Don't you feel bad endangering the souls of others because they cannot surrender their own lifetime of programming in a different religion?

Because Jesus told us to, and so that more people are able to be included in the kingdom of God. It's a gift of love we're offering.

Leave them alone and don't tell them about your faith, and then your god will judge them on merit. That is the fairest solution.

If a person is truly seeking God, then they will embrace the truth. Like we've already discussed in this thread, we should all be open to the truth and not be afraid to face it. All I do is speak what I believe to be the truth, and it's up to others to accept or reject it. That's what we're all doing here in this forum.

[JesusHChrist]

I can see we're not connecting.

It's not a matter of not connecting, whatever that means. You are making assertions that are factually unsupportable with the existing data.

The facts:

1. Modern humans are descedants of multiple lines of previous humans. Our source "Eve" and "Adam", lived apart in time (although probably within 10,000 years of each other) and apart in geography.

2. The human population around 6-8k years ago was about 4 million.



You seem to believe around 6-8k years ago, god infused some two humans with a "soul" and we are all descedants from those two. Except, from genetics we know that is impossible.

3. The Bible plainly says we are descended directly from Adam and Eve. Even Jesus has Adam in one (or both?) of the geneologies. Yet, it is a virtual scientific certainty humans did not come about via Adam and Eve. So, the Adam and Eve story must be taken metaphorically. We're back to Jesus dying for a metaphor.

4. Per modern genetics, there have never been less than 10,000 human individuals traipsing around the earth.

So, the part that isn't clear to me is, just when and via what mechanism do you think god changed humans over from sinless/no soul, to sinners with a soul? Couldn't have been in 6000BC, unless he put that soul in all 4 million people existing at that time. And, for that to work, you mean to say, before 6000BC people were't sinners? How does that all work?

[Jenny A]

The thing about gay marriage is that no one is trying to tell the church what they can and can't do as ceremonies in their church. No one is demanding they perform gay marriage ceremonies, or that any gay christians become married.

But in return, christians seem to want to apply their opinion of what should and shouldn't be allowed to other people who share none of their beliefs. We're already godless heathens, what difference does it make if we are gay and get married? What business is it of christianity?

I just created a religion where I think marriage should be between 3 people of the same sex only. Anyone who gets married in any other way is offending me and is not respecting my religion. Is this reasonable? Or should I keep this restriction to myself and my religion?

I'm talking about how the secular nation of the United States of America has defined marriage since it's beginning. Can this nation decide to change that definition now? I guess so, but I'm against it. Like my previous example of fraternities and sororities; you don't have to forcibly change an institution that is dear to many to afford equal rights to all citizens.

I think fraternities and sororities are a silly comparison. Marriage is an agreement between spouses enforced by the state. It isn't a club to which all married people belong. Whether other people are married does not affect your marriage.

This nation has changed what it means to be married progressively over time. It has never only applied to Christians as Jewish people and involuntarily imported Africans were here pretty early and marrying. Not to mention American Indians. Many states banned inter-racial marriage with the same vehemence you want to ban gay marriage. That too has changed. For a while Utah had polygamy (theoretically that's over now).

Originally the marriage law in this country could be summed up this way: man and his wife are one person before the law and that one person is the man. That has thankfully ended. Simply by giving spouses equal rights in a marriage, we changed the definition of marriage radically.

[FatAndFaithless]

(Not to mention that "the original definition of marriage" had to be 'changed' to include interracial marriage)

EDIT: Aaand of course Jenny mentioned that in her post. Her much better, more thought-out post. *Shakes fist in jealousy*

[robvalue]

Who are these people marriage is "dear" to? I think you just mean homophobes, no? And what does it matter to them if same sex couples get married? Do these people think it somehow devalues their marriage? No one is changing their marriages or forcing them to marry the same sex.

Laws change all the time, hopefully for the better. And when unwarranted prejudice exists, it is only right to eliminate it. If some bigoted fools decide to get upset about it, that's their problem. I wouldn't put their homophobic opinions ahead of the rights of the whole gay community.

Why do you want this law stuck right where it is? You seem to be hiding behind other people's bigotry here instead of owning up to your own.

---

If you're going to say it makes God unhappy (sin) then that goes to show how religion rots society.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Why, then, do you proselityze? Don't you feel bad endangering the souls of others because they cannot surrender their own lifetime of programming in a different religion?

Because Jesus told us to, and so that more people are able to be included in the kingdom of God. It's a gift of love we're offering.

This doesn't reconcile well with what you said about people who hadn't heard of Christ being judged on merit, then. Because what you're doing is, by your own beliefs (vapid though I think they are), you're putting them at risk of damnation if they don't see things your way.

Now, to me, that is not a gift of love, but rather, an act of ego. Believe as I do or burn in Hell, now that I've told you is no message of love.

If a person is truly seeking God, then they will embrace the truth. Like we've already discussed in this thread, we should all be open to the truth and not be afraid to face it. All I do is speak what I believe to be the truth, and it's up to others to accept or reject it. That's what we're all doing here in this forum.

The problem with this, again, is that you're increasing the likelihood that they will burn in Hell (as you belief goes) -- because we all know how difficult it is un deprogram oneself from religious upbringing. Well, the atheists here do. You believers may not.

Given the difficulty of shaking off one's sociocultural programming, you're not doing anyone any favors proselytizing. You're putting them in more danger, not less. That is not a loving act.

The loving thing to do would be to let them have their relationship with god on their own terms, and let whatever god exists judge them on merit.

---

I'm talking about how the secular nation of the United States of America has defined marriage since it's beginning. Can this nation decide to change that definition now? I guess so, but I'm against it. Like my previous example of fraternities and sororities; you don't have to forcibly change an institution that is dear to many to afford equal rights to all citizens.

"Separate but equal" has been rightly discarded by American jurisprudence for being a tool of oppression against minorities.

Have you read no history at all?

Further, this idea that a word is more valuable than human happiness is revolting. If you're offended by our government extending equal rights to everyone, I'd suggest you start reexamining what it means to be a good citizen here.

---

(Not to mention that "the original definition of marriage" had to be 'changed' to include interracial marriage)

EDIT: Aaand of course Jenny mentioned that in her post. Her much better, more thought-out post. *Shakes fist in jealousy*

... not to mention that Christians themselves had to change the definition of marriage from a procedure to legitimize the spoils of war, or seal a contract between two fathers, to a ritual whereby a man and woman proclaim their love before God.