| Author | Message | ||
     H0gwash |
It should be noted that outside the city of Atlanta, the State of Georgia does not have an anti-discrimination in public accommodations law. | ||
| Torquehd |
The basic understanding of marriage even before the Christian era was to build up the family to build up the state, Christianity kept that and added to it That's not what Christians believe. Day 6: Gen 2:21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. 25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. This is the principle of the Christian belief regarding marriage (with many, many other supporting verses throughout the bible). Marriage = 1 man and 1 woman. In the old testament, polygamy was somewhat common. And it created MAJOR problems, EVERY time. | ||
| Airbozo |
What about couples who marry knowing they do not want kids? Should those marriages be considered "un-natural" since there is no crotch fruit? | ||
| Torquehd |
There's a difference between natural and moral. It's natural to lie to avoid punishment. It's natural to want to take without earning. It's natural to let your anger control you instead of controlling your anger. "natural" is not a good foundation for morals. | ||
| Hootowl |
Nice chuck of wisdom there, thank you. | ||
| Mackja |
Being sterile has nothing to do with it, it is the sexual act between man and woman that has the capacity or the possibility to have children, this is the natural order. Your example of what is natural is totally misunderstood. Natural law is based upon reason and objective truth, and since God is the creator of man, and nature it hold certain objective truths which together with sacred scripture have formed our moral understanding. Natural law and divine providence are interwoven, Natural law constitute the principles of practical rationality, Natural law is an aspect of divine providence because it is a participation in the eternal law, The eternal law is a rational plan by which all creation is ordered, natural law is the way human being participate in the eternal law. Rational beings have a share in the eternal law only by being determined by it, their action non-freely results from their determinate natures, natures the existence of which results from God's will in accordance with God's eternal plan, as rational beings we are able to grasp our share in the eternal law and freely act on it. It is this feature of the natural law which justifies our calling the natural law, law. For law is a rule of action put in place by one who has care to the community, and as God cares of the entire universe, God's choosing to bring into existence beings who can act freely and in accordance with principles of reason is enough to justify our thinking of those principles of reason as law. I find that most do not understand natural law theory, which does not surprise me. You will discover it is the foundation of western law, positive law and the very existence of this country. Both our Constitution and Declaration of Independence are natural rights documents, and it was the invoking of natural law that was used to justify our separation from Great Britain. Unfortunately it is not taught much any more because it point against societies acceptance of abortion, SSM, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell, embryo harvesting, etc... | ||
| Mackja |
Torqhd, I say Christian era because the Jews did not follow the verses you spell out, because of the demand of the people Moses allowed divorce. In the verses you quote it is clear divorce was not part of the plan, Jesus Himself made this abundantly clear. Once again the main reason for marriage is to move the human race forward, by marriage man and woman create a family, these families build up the state. The command to go fourth and multiply is not only God's command but a reality for the human race to exist. Marriage existed outside of Israel and did not necessarily have a religious meaning, but was based upon reason itself. Airboso, speaking from strictly a Christian perspective, Most denominations will not marry a couple if it is made clear up front that they will not have children. Orthodox, Catholic and most mainstream Protestant churches follow this understanding because it violates what they understand marriage to be. (Message edited by mackja on December 15, 2016) | ||
| Reepicheep |
You are stating your beliefs on what marriage is. Which is your business. I just can't understand how people can feel comfortable forcing forcing their views on others. If it's illegal (incest, pedophilia, kidnapping, whatever) then it's illegal. Fine. And don't make a church perform a marriage ceremony that doesn't fit with their belief systems. Fine. Otherwise, stop trying to force a loving relationship with God at the barrel of a gun (which is what the force of law ultimately represents). There was a political group in the bible that felt the need to narrowly interpret scripture, make those interpretations laws, and then force people to obey them. It ended with them killing the son of God. Is that really the side you want to be on? And logically, I just have to tell you, that when you claim "God made marriage between only a man and a woman and soley for the purposes of reproduction", you are not just being illogical, you are frankly being an •••••••. Just so you know. Reproduction works just fine outside of marriage, and marriage works just fine apart from reproduction, and some of the most awesome families (Christian and otherwise) I know have adopted instead of "reproducing" either by choice or necessity. | ||
| Hootowl |
"Reproduction works just fine outside of marriage" Biologically true. Look at all the fatherless children out there. How's that working out for them? (Hint: Look at the incarceration rate for men who grew up without a father.) The nuclear family is the ideal. That doesn't mean there aren't instances of a lesbian couple being better parents than the straight couple next door, but it's still the ideal environment for raising a child. | ||
| Torquehd |
Most denominations will not marry a couple if it is made clear up front that they will not have children. I contest this. I've been a protestant church goer since 1991, attending several denominations, with a large number of family and friends attending a wide spread of denominations, and I have not once heard of this. Perhaps the Catholic side of the house. Perhaps some, but I have a very hard time swallowing "most". because it violates what they understand marriage to be. I already cited Genesis 2:24; there's no prereq for children. In any verse that I have ever read. Marriage is a sanctified union of a man and woman, and the two become one - that's exactly what God outlined since before Adam and Eve had children. If you know of churches that have this prereq, it's not biblical. It might fit in with your natural laws theory (and I would like to emphasize, theory), but it's just not biblical. | ||
| Mackja |
Reepicheep I like what you are saying. Let me say am not saying marriage is just for procreation. It is one of the main reasons. If I tried to spell out here the complete understanding of God's plan in marriage it would be several pages long. Lets just say a Christian marriage has two aspects, unitive and procreative.That teaching, is founded upon the inseparable connection, willed by God and unable to be broken by man on his own initiative, between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning. By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its ordination towards man's most high calling to parenthood. The spouses’ union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family. The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the twofold obligation of fidelity and fecundity. Never is it permitted to separate these different aspects [unitive and procreative] to the point of excluding positively either the intention of procreation or the conjugal relation. The husband and wife do no wrong in seeking out and enjoying this pleasure [cooperating with God in propagating the human race]. They are accepting what the Creator intended for them. Still, here too, the husband and wife ought to know how to keep within the bounds of moderation. As in eating and drinking, they ought not to give themselves over completely to the promptings of their senses, so neither ought they to subject themselves unrestrainedly to their sensual appetite. This, therefore, is the rule to be followed: the use of the natural, generative instinct and function is lawful in the married state only, and in the service of the purposes for which marriage exists. | ||
| Mackja |
Torguehd I understand that the independent nature of protestant communities means that practices might differ. The call for children in marriage is extremely Biblical, "go fourth and multiply", and "the two shall become one" this is telling us in marriage the conjugal act between one man and one woman becomes one most clearly in the birth of a child. In this act man and woman participate is God's creative act. Nothing could be more Biblical. I do know a couple of protestant ministers who agree with the practice used by the Orthodox and Catholic churches. If you think about is, why would a Christian couple get married if they refused to have children. Now if it is not possible that is a whole different story. I would consider Genesis 1:28, clearly God is tell us to have children. 1 Corinthians 7:1-40, here God is saying we should not deprive one another from the conjugal act, the fruit of the act is children. We can also see in scripture, how the Church mirrors this understanding also. Jesus is the Bridegroom, we the community of believers are the Bride (anima word in greek is feminine, mean soul, our souls are feminine) the Church the bride in union with Christ the groom in baptism by water and spirit has us born anew. The imagery for this is every where in scripture. Natural law and scripture go together, is not God the creator of all the universe, and did He not design all creatures and elements with a purpose. Physics shows this to be true, the order of the universe comes from God. What is best for human nature can be known by observing nature itself. Creation is also a revelation from God. Are their not revealed truths in nature? Their are objective truths about man found in creation iteslf, God gave man the ability to reason ( being made in His image and likeness) so wee can know who He is and to draw closer to Him. This is why the claim of Sola Scriptora is false and goes against scripture itself. I know this is not what you have been lead to believe, but when you see Gods hand at work in the universe, you must accept that the universe is teaching us revealed objective truth about God. (Message edited by mackja on December 15, 2016) | ||
| Reepicheep |
I think a lifelong marriage between a man and a woman is the best and wisest plan if you want to raise successful children. But boy can it be a trainwreck even when you do it right. One or the other spouse checks out or does something stupid, or a kid just (for whatever reason) ends up being some kind of psycho •••••••. I see it over and over. And it can go really right even when you do everything wrong. I have some single and no (effective) parent friends that are some of the most amazing people I know. If people ask me how they should raise a family? A shared faith in Christ, a heart to serve each other, and choosing a spouse with character and a history off good decision making, and no sex until marriage. If people ask me what the laws should be around who is forbidden to to marry by men with guns? That's a MUCH different answer. Marriage is two things, a spiritual faith thing (that varies wildly among faith communities) and a legal term with legal implications. The latter should be all that is enforced by law, and even there it should never have been commingled in the first place. If it had to exist at all, it should have been simply "partner with power of attorney under law" from the beginning. | ||
| Airbozo |
"It's natural to lie to avoid punishment. It's natural to want to take without earning. It's natural to let your anger control you instead of controlling your anger." While I agree with the first one (self preservation), I disagree with the last two. Those behaviors are associated with mental illness. As far as fatherless children go, I have done very well without one, thank you very much. It's been tough, but I like challenges. I am in a better place than many folks with both parents. It takes determination and willpower, plus the help of people that love you. The SO and I did not discuss children until the fourth day of our honeymoon, when she mentioned she did not want kids (she is the oldest of four girls from a very Catholic upbringing), I was fine with that as I had already helped to raise my sister's kids since she was a mostly absent mom. Now the SO has hundreds of kids. Yes she is a teacher and sees most of her kids more than their parents do. She needs the time at home without kids to recharge and do it again the next day. We would be divorced if we had opted to have kids. Something I see in a lot of my friends. People also read things into the bible that are frankly not there. I wish I had all of my papers and schoolwork from the years I spent in my world religion classes. When you study what the different religions believe and where the information comes from, it is a real eye opener. Many religions share the same core beliefs concerning how to treat others and the beings around them. Those "core beliefs come from long before there was a bible or Christianity for that matter. The semester we spent studying how certain "books" were included in the christian bible while others were not, is a real insight into where man wanted the religion to go. The appropriation of certain holiday's (Christmas for one) also shows how church leaders were terrified that people were celebrating supposedly pagan holidays (harvest times, season changes etc.) instead of devoting all their time to new religions. Unlike a lot of "non-believers", I see value in most aspects of religion. Humans have a desire to believe that they are not a random occurrence and that their lives have purpose beyond spawning children to populate the earth for the survival of the species. Some people also need to believe that there is a boogeyman that will punish them for all eternity in order for them to behave in a morally acceptable way. | ||
| Blake |
Airbozo, Your professor may have presented quite a biased view to you concerning the compilation of the New Testament. He says or you say that it was how man wanted the religion to go. How do you know that it was not simply to vet that which was or was not true to the actual gospel of Christ? Certainly you know that the gnostic (Greek for "knowledge" I think) "gospels" were written long after the material that comprises the New Testament, and that they were forgeries in the sense that their claimed authorship or attribution is fallacious, or at least highly dubious. The gospels were written within the lifespan of actual eyewitnesses to Christ's ministry, crucifixion, and resurrection. The New Testament simply reflects the books/letters that were already in common use among Christian churches including those dating back to Paul circa 50 a.d. The cabin I code is fiction you know, and even its claims to historicity false. Religions do share some even many principles, but they also contradict each other. This fact may be good evidence that the commonality is trustworthy, but it is not evid nice that they are all false. Seek truth. Avoid skeptical caricature. Grace truly is amazing. (Message edited by Blake on December 15, 2016) | ||
| Blake |
All, If you want to know why "good" self-righteous Christians are in no better standing, perhaps even worse off with God than their wayward brothers and sisters, the following in its entirety is to-date the single most awesome presentation of Christ's gospel I've ever seen. I wish I had seen this a long time ago. Incredible. Please watch and share. https://youtu.be/c1ZdlXehqzk What do you think? | ||
| Blake |
I've never seen that parable explained so thoroughly. Context makes such a HUGE difference. Probably ought to go into its own thread. | ||
| Aesquire |
 Different Pantheon than you're talking about. But accurate enough for govt. work. Mildly curious what the Judaeo-Christian version would be. "Denied god exists" "cursed god for disaster" "had his best friend killed in battle so he could steal his wife....legally" "betrayed his people for cash"......... Of course you'd need at least 3 pie charts. Olde Testament, New Testament, and Anti-Jesus propaganda.... "Hangs out with prostitutes and gamblers" "Rabble rouser who betrays the Revolution by advocating paying taxes to Ceasar" "It's all a Roman plot" "Global Warming Denier" ( It was warmer in Roman times than today... a lot warmer ) "Anti-free-money-changer heretic" "Practices Medicine without a license".....  | ||
| Airbozo |
Bias is always present in everyone, so it is possible, but considering this was a Jesuit college the professor was following established doctrine when teaching. It was actually an enlightening study and opened my eyes to a lot of how Christianity was formed. And why. I am always kind of surprised that people feel the King James version is the best considering the bias and political motivations present when it was translated. Respect for the King, Bishops in charge, stuff like that. The translators were not even adept at the original or "common" Greek language the texts were translated from. It is still the most common version used though, but there are more accurately translated versions out there. | ||
| Torquehd |
Airbozo, my daughter is 19 months old, she only knows what is natural. When she gets mad, she hits. When she wants something, she will try to take it out of your hands. That's not a mental disorder, that's a human acting naturally before learning. | ||
| H0gwash |
When two male farm animals appear to engage in recreational sex, is that natural law? Can what happens naturally in nature be unnatural? I think there is secular marriage outside of the church for those with ex-spouses, those too old to have kids, etc, gays, and then there is religious marriage held in churches. While I won't tell a church how to marry its own congregants inside a church, I don't like a church telling me who I can marry outside of their own church. | ||
| Mackja |
Natural law is directed more to human nature, than nature itself. But lets take the farm animal thing a bit further and use human instead of animals, because humans can reason. The concept of reason according to Aristotle is by understanding identifying characteristics of something we can determine what it is for, once we in know what something is for then we can know what it is. what are the identifying characteristic of man and woman, obviously it is the sexual organs, what are they for reproduction, now we now what male and female is, this is the natural order. Any other sexual activity that cannot bring about reproduction is disfigured in nature, outside of the natural order. This is reason and logic, using observation. If we look at a chair, to know if it is a chair we look at the identifying characteristics and determine what it is for, we will observe its construction shape and function (what it is for) then we know what it is. Now the problem is when people start to believe the chair is an umbrella, just because they want it to be an umbrella, this is nonsense, but this is what is being taught in our higher centers of education. This opens the mind to distort truth, to move away from reality and feeds self desires over truth. | ||
| Sifo |
I think there is secular marriage outside of the church for those with ex-spouses, those too old to have kids, etc, gays, and then there is religious marriage held in churches. While I won't tell a church how to marry its own congregants inside a church, I don't like a church telling me who I can marry outside of their own church. I think you have things backwards. The church never has (in this country) told you whom you can marry outside of their church. The government however, got involved in marriage, expressly to do exactly that. | ||
| Hootowl |
+a billion Tom. I've ranted against that very thing several times. | ||
| Mackja |
Torque you are talking about reaction, this is not natural law. Natural law is a body of unchanging moral principles regarded as a basis for all human conduct. It is somewhat ambiguous because it does not refer to the laws of nature, but the laws that govern human behavior, objectively derived from the nature of human beings. Video does a nice job in presenting the parable. It is so important to understand first century Jewish culture to understand scripture. Using a 21st century mind set make it impossible. Nicely done, in the Divine Liturgy or Mass we have an ancient prayer called the Anphora or Roman cannon (Eucharistic prayer I) which dates back to the 3rd century, while listening to his explanation my mind was taken to that prayer, as it embodies that parable, to which we respond "Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed" | ||
| Aesquire |
Unchanging and Ambiguous? I'm going to just disagree with you... on multiple details. Not everything. You're not wrong about everything. But IMHO you draw conclusions not apparent from the references. I Do enjoy the fusion of Platonic Forms with uptight sexual notions. Irony is often amusing, when it's not tragic. ( I'm talking about the cliche of "greek" sex vs. the notion that non-reproductive sex is inherently evil. That's just funny ) the laws that govern human behavior, objectively derived from the nature of human beings Now that IS an interesting notion. It's been used by Atheists at times as a way to attack the idea that God is behind morality. Alternatively, you can say that nature is a creation of God & thus of course the enlightened can derive rules of human behavior that would be the same as Biblical ones. I point to game theory where "good" behavior often is best long term for the most people. "Evil" behavior, otoh, is good for fast cash and leaves ruin behind. Best example I can think of is the small town built around the family logging company. Smart owner, sustainable logging, planned to keep harvesting the mountains for generations. Sons didn't want to do all that work, so company was sold to a Mega-corp, that clear cut the mountains, dumped the company & left the town in an ecological disaster area of landslides, choked rivers, and apocalyptic ruin. Pretty easy for me to determine good & evil there. | ||
| Torquehd |
Mack, I wasn't familiar with this natural law theory so I looked into it. First, I wasn't saying that the intent of the human heart has anything to do with this natural law theory - I'm saying that human nature is evil and should not be trusted as a compass by which we should determine morality. I think I understand what this natural law says, although it sounds like different philosophers have come to differing opinions while examining the same universe (which would make the theory that the universe will teach us truth... not universally true). Are their not revealed truths in nature? Their are objective truths about man found in creation iteslf, God gave man the ability to reason ( being made in His image and likeness) so wee can know who He is and to draw closer to Him. This is why the claim of Sola Scriptora is false and goes against scripture itself you must accept that the universe is teaching us revealed objective truth about God. In the words of Pontius Pilate, "What is truth"? What is the standard by which you judge whether or not something is true, or right? If human judgement is your meter, then you're putting faith in man's wisdom. And, what seems right to one man seems wrong to another. Truth cannot be relative to the observer, if you believe anything about the bible. Prov 3:5 Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. 6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths. 7 Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the Lord, and depart from evil. If it seems right to you, DON'T TRUST YOURSELF, or your understanding of the universe. Or the theories generated by other men, who are likewise flawed. It's not right because the universe is a zodiac rulebook, it's right because God said so. Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? Jeremiah 17:5 Thus saith the Lord; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord. Psalms 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. It doesn't say the universe teaches us morality; it says it shows God's glory. Folks all across history have looked to the universe for truth, and have branched out into things like astrology, macro evolution, ancient aliens - take your pick. Deuteronomy 4:19 And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the Lord thy God hath divided unto all nations under the whole heaven. Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. Don't speak on behalf of the bible and say that it's biblical to outsource morality from nature. Isaiah 55 8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. You can't find something outside the word of God and say, "this is morally pure". God IS truth. The universe is not God, unless you're looking at it through occult lenses. John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. If my understanding of natural law is flawed, let me know - this is what I gathered from wiki, some catholic pages, and some western philosophy pages. | ||
| Blake |
Farm animals? Gosh I've been around plenty when I was younger. Only non-hetero humping I ever saw was a show of dominance, not for pleasure. A femal canine would even hump a subordinate male, same with female sheep. Do you reckon some may see what they want to see? Anyway, farm animals and wild animals do all kinds of bizarre things. I'm not sure how that relates to the ideals that we humans are supposed to uphold. I'll never forget the dirty jobs video of the zoologist who had the task of stimulating the bull elephant's prostate. His associate held the catch can for the semen sample. | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.badweatherbikers.com/buell/messages/406 2/798126.html?1481351066 Another thread's thoughts on the subject. As usual, when pondering "deep thoughts" I look to the great writers to inform me. Not knocking Aristotle or Kant...... But a philosophy point of view is limited in it's navel gazing. A concept may be logical, self consistent, and appeal on many levels, but it may break down applied somewhere, or somewhen, else. btw. I hear Monty Python every time I think of Emmanuel Kant, or Plato. Memorizing the Philosopher's Song was part of jump training for my generation. We learned emergency procedures by repetition and mnemonics. So since Romance writers seldom consider deep thoughts....science fiction, the literature of ideas. In Jerry Pournelle's "Forever War" travel at relativistic speeds creates groups of soldiers that are out of time sync with the cultures they return to. In some ways, it's much like Starship Troopers ( the book, not the abomination of a movie ) with mixed race & sex troopers with spacesuit/powered armor.. But instead of a classic military coming of age novel, it's social speculation. ( and advanced weapons from a real expert on the subject ) It follows an early 21st century group of troopers through multiple battles, and cultural changes. The troopers don't fit into any of the new societies, so are assigned guides who have studied the ancient languages and cultures of the troopers. The returning soldiers are considered a threat to public order, (See 20th & 21st century Earth, U.S.A.) so they send them back out, to fight again. And again. As Earth society gets more bizarre, on one return, because of overpopulation, Homosexuality isn't just encouraged, it's mandatory. The troopers are considered perverts. Eventually they come back to a humanity they don't even recognize as human. The point? Morality is, in part, a reflection of the society, which in turn is a reflection of it's leader's beliefs and people's. While I find it unlikely that the future will have mandatory homosexuality... Actually, 8 years of Hillary might have done that. I can comment on Catholic Church Law. ( as, to be clear, an Arch Heretic  ) Very Pragmatic folk run the Mother Church, and some of the rules are for very simple reasons, and not very spiritual. Catholic Priests are not allowed to marry, to preserve Church property in a time when the local priest was very much part of the hereditary aristocracy. They didn't want little kingdoms with the sons splitting up the extensive property of the Church. Birth control in the modern sense, contraception prevention, not abortion, ( both pre-date the church by.. a lot ) is based on the pragmatic fact that majority rules. Votes, armies, laborers, the side with the most wins. Permitting their folk to control their population would mean other groups that did not would eventually overwhelm them. It has actually worked, fairly well, until the 20th century. You can read or write lots of essays on the reasons for the decline the last century. And... lastly, Jewish Dietary Laws. I don't recall any reason for the Cheeseburger rule, but shellfish ( red sea poison algae ) and pigs ( parasites ) make perfect sense. OTOH Catholic Burgers on Friday Damnation was originally a celebration PR campaign, possibly with some input from the Fisherman's Guild, and became a major source of jokes about overcrowding in Hell. Go figure. Of course, I could be wrong. YMMV | ||
| H0gwash |
"...The church never has... told you whom you can marry outside of their church. The government however, got involved in marriage, expressly to do exactly that." I will restate: Churches have every right to marry whomever they feel is worthy within church walls. The government has every right to marry whomever they feel is worthy outside of those church walls and within their jurisdiction. |
