Dispelling the usual nonsense about the Galileo affair.....

[Murat Baslamisli]

I don't know of such an example, but why do you need to see it in order to believe that God is good?



Actually, there is a huge amount of archaeological evidence for the veracity of many Biblical stories. You are apparently totally unaware of this.

The question was never about if god is good or not, but is he CAPABLE. Huge difference. If there is a god, he is either incompetent, judging by the suffering in this world, or he just does not care. Either way I refuse to believe I am an experiment in someone's fish bowl.

I have never seen any evidence, archaeological or otherwise about how you can turn water into wine, how you can survive 3 days in the belly of a whale, or how a snake can talk or how kangaroos made the roughly 7 thousand mile trip to noah's ark . Care to explain the evidences you speak of?

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

The problem is people DO credit god when they beat cancer, heal from a disease, survive a car crash. What do all those things have in common? They can never totally be proven HOW the healing happened. When someone say god made him better, the poor doctor who fixed the person can say nothing against that.

Also - about this. Why are you focusing strictly on the healing process and not prior processes that could lead to the healing?

One can make an argument that God helped the doctor perform his job well when he "beat cancer", or that the patient was fortunate to be in a situation where they could be treated.

People invoking God when they overcome disease is partially sentimental, but it is not poisonous either, as you are implying.

Of course you are right, people DO say those things. God helped the doctor, the patient was fortunate, god made you hit the 3 point shot in the last second. My problem with all those things , again, is that they can NEVER be proven, so you just say it, and leave it at that. But when I ask for one specific situation that can show the god's healing powers, not one example in history. Is it too much to ask for one tiny example ? It is easy to say god healed me when nobody can prove otherwise.

 

[Moxie]

Cali, you started this thread with a video of a man who is not really a great intellect. And then you go on to disparage those who would argue against it. You're welcome to your opinion, but insulting those who would debate with you does not put you in a position of strength. Debate should be point-to-point, not insult.

Gay marriage is a straight-forward civil contract. Whether or not you are in favor of it, equality in civil contracts makes sense in the notion of equal rights across the board. No religious group will be required to perform same-sex marriages, but the State will. That is the difference. Thereby, the State recognizes rights, and also recognizes the rights of religious institutions to have the freedom to object for religious reasons. However, that is a personal choice, and not a civil one. A marriage is a contract, and the State has an obligation to recognize contracts amongst people to be fair and judged on equal grounds.

 

[calitennis127]

Cali, you started this thread with a video of a man who is not really a great intellect.

He is a great historian and he is pretty much as good as you will find in our sorry world today, intellectually speaking.

But more to the point - you did not refute anything he said in there. You have not discussed any of the substance.

And then you go on to disparage those who would argue against it.

The only person on this thread who has argued against it is murat, and he only gave a generalized dismissal along the lines that "a religious person has no right to ask for proof from a scientist". This was a philosophical point tangential to the content of the video, and even so, I have directly engaged him on it.

So - you are wrong.

As always, you struggle mightily to deal in specifics, or to even notice them.

You're welcome to your opinion, but insulting those who would debate with you does not put you in a position of strength. Debate should be point-to-point, not insult.

Are you kidding me? Have you even read this thread?

No one has gone more "point-to-point" on this thread discussing substance than I have. Sure, I have thrown some insults, but never without a ton of substance to go with it.

Gay marriage is a straight-forward civil contract. Whether or not you are in favor of it, equality in civil contracts makes sense in the notion of equal rights across the board.

And saying that this means "gay marriage" should be the law of the land is a total non sequitur.

No religious group will be required to perform same-sex marriages, but the State will.

No, it will just be a matter of time until the churches are directly forced to perform these ceremonies. The purpose of this movement is not, primarily, to enrich the life of "gay people", but to attack Christian morality. The vast majority of gay people do not want to get married anyway. This movement is simply symbolic.

Thereby, the State recognizes rights,

Borne of long-standing religious, moral, and legal traditions.

and also recognizes the rights of religious institutions to have the freedom to object for religious reasons.

No, it doesn't. And this convenient dichotomy between church and state is a total lie. Religion and government overlap in hundreds of ways in civil life, and there is no way to draw a clear line between them. The founders understood this, and only modern atheist idiots have run with one quote from a Jefferson letter to assert the contrary.

The true meaning of "separation of church and state" is "eradication and exclusion of the church by the state".

However, that is a personal choice, and not a civil one. A marriage is a contract, and the State has an obligation to recognize contracts amongst people to be fair and judged on equal grounds.

And again, saying that this means that "gay marriage" should be the law of the land is a complete non sequitur.

 

[calitennis127]

It's you that injected Jason Collins and moved the conversation of the thread. As I bolded above, you say that "equal justice for all," is a 'hollow and meaningless expression.' What a cynical thing to say.

Call it cynical if you wish, but the fact is, an abstract phrase like "equal justice for all" can only be understood with a particular ethical framework behind it. What a Muslim or a Christian or a modern Democratic Party voter consider to be "justice" can be very different. In fact, what the "founding fathers" would consider to be "justice" is very different than many things you believe.

So to invoke it as some sort of permanent standard which justifies all of your particular political inclinations is preposterous.

There were some early American states (such as Lincoln's Illinois) which banned the entry of black people into their territory. So by that interpretation, "equal justice" could mean imprisoning and deporting runaway slaves from the South who entered Illinois illegally? Is that something you would agree with Moxie?

Who defines what "equal justice" is? Think Socratically please.

Do you not think that everything the US stands for is that, i.e. equal justice? It may be a hard thing to strive for, but it is our ideal.

No offense, but do you know anything about the early history of our country? Please read the original documents.

 

[Moxie]

It's you that injected Jason Collins and moved the conversation of the thread. As I bolded above, you say that "equal justice for all," is a 'hollow and meaningless expression.' What a cynical thing to say.

Call it cynical if you wish, but the fact is, an abstract phrase like "equal justice for all" can only be understood with a particular ethical framework behind it. What a Muslim or a Christian or a modern Democratic Party voter consider to be "justice" can be very different. In fact, what the "founding fathers" would consider to be "justice" is very different than many things you believe.

So to invoke it as some sort of permanent standard which justifies all of your particular political inclinations is preposterous.

There were some early American states (such as Lincoln's Illinois) which banned the entry of black people into their territory. So by that interpretation, "equal justice" could mean imprisoning and deporting runaway slaves from the South who entered Illinois illegally? Is that something you would agree with Moxie?

Who defines what "equal justice" is? Think Socratically please.

Do you not think that everything the US stands for is that, i.e. equal justice? It may be a hard thing to strive for, but it is our ideal.

No offense, but do you know anything about the early history of our country? Please read the original documents.

I think that I actually invoked the principal of equal justice as a work-in-progress, based on the founding ideals. I know a lot about our early history, and it, for all of its flaws, has been about a continual striving for fairness and equality. Thinking Socratically, are you trying to say that, because we have, in the past, been so unfair that we should be so in our future? That does not describe the trajectory of this country. Nor does it comply with the Socratic, which was to open the mind and enlighten, not close the mind. If you're stuck in the 19th C., I doubt that Socrates would have been impressed.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

I don't get the opposition to gay marriage honestly. It is like you are against people eating junk food because YOU are on a diet. You are not forced into it, you are not forced to associate with the people who are into it...

Gay people should also have every right to be miserable and have sex every other sunday and have a divorce rate of %50 just like us heteros.:laydownlaughing:laydownlaughing:laydownlaughing

 

[DarthFed]

I don't get the opposition to gay marriage honestly. It is like you are against people eating junk food because YOU are on a diet. You are not forced into it, you are not forced to associate with the people who are into it...

Gay people should also have every right to be miserable and have sex every other sunday and have a divorce rate of %50 just like us heteros.:laydownlaughing:laydownlaughing:laydownlaughing

Because...because... it it it is just wrong, don't you know. "Natural law" and history has dictated that marriage is between a man and woman and we know those things are never wrong and are never to be changed. Stop thinking so progressively, what could possibly be wrong with the world as is?

Truthfully, the big thing about gay marriage was initially the tax breaks (a gay couple still had to file separately) but it has progressed from there and of course there are still many people up in arms about it because...it just ain't right. If they call it a "civil union" there are no tax breaks but at least it'd be a victory for history!

 

[britbox]

Well, for many (me included) the term "marriage" means a union between man and wife. I'm not against civil partnerships or picking some other name for the union.

I know you're a fan of science, so using a scientific analogy, mixing two tubes of hydrogen together doesn't make water. Mixing hydrogen and oxygen does.

 

[nehmeth]

***news flash***
David Nalbandian has read this thread and is seriously considering coming out of retirement.

 

[Kieran]

***news flash***
David Nalbandian has read this thread and is seriously considering coming out of retirement.

Yes, but only because Cali compared Rafa's rustic broken arm backhand with Daveed's aristocratic aesthetic thing of beauty...

 

[nehmeth]

^^^
:snigger

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Well, for many (me included) the term "marriage" means a union between man and wife. I'm not against civil partnerships or picking some other name for the union.

I know you're a fan of science, so using a scientific analogy, mixing two tubes of hydrogen together doesn't make water. Mixing hydrogen and oxygen does.

I am not hung up on names at all. It can be called whatever anyone wants. If we say the sole purpose of marriage is to procreate, than I would have to agree there is something unnatural about the whole thing. But if we are talking about two people loving each other, wanting to live together and spending the rest of their lives without worrying about mixing hydrogen and oxygen( :snigger), let them do it. Life is too short. You find love, hold on to it. I wish I could marry my racket

Like I said though, if name is the issue, I am OK with finding a suitable one. In fact. let's hear proposals.

 

[tented]

Well, for many (me included) the term "marriage" means a union between man and wife. I'm not against civil partnerships or picking some other name for the union.

I think the word "marriage" should not be used in any legal context. "Civil unions" works, and would be applied to heterosexuals and homosexuals. "Marriage" is a ceremony which could be performed in a religious context.

I know you're a fan of science, so using a scientific analogy, mixing two tubes of hydrogen together doesn't make water. Mixing hydrogen and oxygen does.

Why are you even trying to make water? What's the point of this analogy? Is this an implication that homosexuality is unnatural? That marriage should only be for those who procreate?

 

[tented]

It's actually quite funny reading Cali's posts (here and elsewhere). He's a useful tool for measuring progress, as well as defining words. There would be no tolerance if not for intolerance. Bigots exist because there are non-bigots. The level of progress in civil rights and acceptance of gays is shown in high relief when juxtaposed with Cali's antediluvian opinions.

 

[Kieran]

Marriage, in the church, is only valid if both parties are open to the possibility of procreation. It may not be possible for everyone, but to enter a marriage and be closed to the possibility of children arising from the marriage makes the wedding invalid...

 

[tented]

Marriage, in the church, is only valid if both parties are open to the possibility of procreation. It may not be possible for everyone, but to enter a marriage and be closed to the possibility of children arising from the marriage makes the wedding invalid...

Did you copy this from a 16th century Roman document? Or are you only defining it in terms of Catholicism? And does this mean you don't think a man and a woman in their sixties should/could get married?

 

[Kieran]

Marriage, in the church, is only valid if both parties are open to the possibility of procreation. It may not be possible for everyone, but to enter a marriage and be closed to the possibility of children arising from the marriage makes the wedding invalid...

Did you copy this from a 16th century Roman document? Or are you only defining it in terms of Catholicism? And does this mean you don't think a man and a woman in their sixties should/could get married?

I'm telling you what's considered a valid marriage. Not every couple can have a child, but they mustn't be closed to the possibility. It's one of the conditions of a valid marriage in the Church...

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Marriage, in the church, is only valid if both parties are open to the possibility of procreation. It may not be possible for everyone, but to enter a marriage and be closed to the possibility of children arising from the marriage makes the wedding invalid...

Did you copy this from a 16th century Roman document? Or are you only defining it in terms of Catholicism? And does this mean you don't think a man and a woman in their sixties should/could get married?

I'm telling you what's considered a valid marriage. Not every couple can have a child, but they mustn't be closed to the possibility. It's one of the conditions of a valid marriage in the Church...

That's why my marriage was at the City Hall, as hetero as it was

 

[Kieran]

Marriage, in the church, is only valid if both parties are open to the possibility of procreation. It may not be possible for everyone, but to enter a marriage and be closed to the possibility of children arising from the marriage makes the wedding invalid...

Did you copy this from a 16th century Roman document? Or are you only defining it in terms of Catholicism? And does this mean you don't think a man and a woman in their sixties should/could get married?

I'm telling you what's considered a valid marriage. Not every couple can have a child, but they mustn't be closed to the possibility. It's one of the conditions of a valid marriage in the Church...

That's why my marriage was at the City Hall, as hetero as it was

Good for you, brother! I hope you're happy, too, and I won't tell your wife you'd prefer to be married to your tennis racket :snigger