NSBR: Separation of Church and State?

[Tiffikat]

So as I read all of these threads about Palin, McCain, Obama, and a variety of other political issues in the United States today it has me wondering where people stand on the separation of church and state?

If you live in a country that does not have a separation of church and state how do you feel about that? What about those that do?

In the U.S. there is supposed to be a separation of church and state but it seems to me that some of the big issues, or at least the issues that have been mentioned cross the line of this separation. What do you think about this?

Specifically I am talking about gay marriage and teaching creationism in schools. I feel that both of these issues cross the line of that separation since the argument against gay marriage is generally a religious one as is the argument for teaching creationism in schools.

I'm adding my thoughts in a separate post on the subject.

[Tiffikat]

Now personally, I will say I am 100% for gay marriage because I feel that the world as a whole needs more love and tolerance and less punishment of people for loving one another. I also do not feel that anything from the bible should be able to be used as a reason to make a law.

As for creationism, I would be all for creationism being taught in schools as long as all other possible myths and theories of creation are taught as well. I do not think it should be taught as part of a science class, perhaps a second class specifically for this topic though since there are so many different theories and myths behind it. To only teach the Christian idea would infringe upon the rights of children from other religions in my opinion and children with no religion.

I personally would be appalled if my son's school started teaching him creationism without explaining that it is only one theory or idea. If we want him to be taught Christian beliefs and ideas without learning other beliefs and ideas at the same time we would have him in a religious school. Otherwise I believe the values and ideas of one religion have no place in public schools without all other religions being considered and incorporated. I even struggle with the pledge since it says "one nation, under god" and not everyone of the families at these schools believe in god.

Evolution does have a scientific basis though so I think it should stay in science class. When I was in high school and we were taught about evolution we were very specifically told that it is only one theory and then a quick brush up of some other theories followed.

I also do not think that creationism should be taught in schools before high school or middle school when it can be chosen as a class by the student with permission from the parents. Personally, we plan on teaching Dom about all of the different religions even though we do not practice any of them. If he wishes to practice a religion some day we will be completely supportive of that.

/end my super long post

For those of you in other countries, how does it work there? What do you think of either topic or both? I'm really interested in opinions from everyone here.

[Chreamps]

I'm a strong believer in separation of church and state for many of the reasons that you mentioned, Tiffany. As far as the government taking away Rowe vs. Wade or outlawing gay marriage (that would be big government IMHO), those are moral/personal issues to me and take the spotlight away from the main (most important) issues to running a country IMHO.

IMHO, when you get religion involved, if it takes over government, which religion do they go by? All religions have different beliefs and in some countries that can be taken to extremes (Taliban?).

ETA:
tiffikat posted:

I personally would be appalled if my son's school started teaching him creationism without explaining that it is only one theory or idea. If we want him to be taught Christian beliefs and ideas without learning other beliefs and ideas at the same time we would have him in a religious school. Otherwise I believe the values and ideas of one religion have no place in public schools without all other religions being considered and incorporated. I even struggle with the pledge since it says "one nation, under god" and not everyone of the families at these schools believe in god.

Evolution does have a scientific basis though so I think it should stay in science class. When I was in high school and we were taught about evolution we were very specifically told that it is only one theory and then a quick brush up of some other theories followed.

I also do not think that creationism should be taught in schools before high school or middle school when it can be chosen as a class by the student with permission from the parents. Personally, we plan on teaching Dom about all of the different religions even though we do not practice any of them. If he wishes to practice a religion some day we will be completely supportive of that.Totally agree on this one, too, except the pledge - I still say that one. It's amazing that many adults don't in a social situation.

[diannerigdon]

I personally would be appalled if my son's school started teaching him creationism without explaining that it is only one theory or idea.

This is exactly what the public schools do with evolutionary teaching. Evolution is simply one theory, not fact, and much of the so-called " science" of evolution has been scientifically refuted, but evolutionists don't want to believe it. It is, in fact, a belief system. I think all theories should be taught, if ANY are taught. Read more about it at http://www.answersingenesis.org/

If anyone thinks our kids are not being taught a religion in public school, think again. Secular humanism is in fact a belief system. Separation of church and state is just being used as a mechanism that atheists, socialists and agnostics use as an weapon to promote their own religion/belief system and fight any public expression of Christianity and it is clearly not being used in the spirit with which it was first created. :)

[maggie965]

This is exactly what the public schools do with evolutionary teaching. Evolution is simply one theory, not fact, and much of the so-called " science" of evolution has been scientifically refuted, but evolutionists don't want to believe it. It is, in fact, a belief system. I think all theories should be taught, if ANY are taught. Read more about it at http://www.answersingenesis.org/

If anyone thinks our kids are not being taught a religion in public school, think again. Secular humanism is in fact a belief system. Separation of church and state is just being used as a mechanism that atheists, socialists and agnostics use as an weapon to promote their own religion/belief system and fight any public expression of Christianity and it is clearly not being used in the spirit with which it was first created. :)

Amen... or to be PC, I agree!!:lol:lol

[Tiffikat]

Interesting. I'm not trying to fight the public expression of Christianity. I'm all for people expressing their own beliefs. However, in order to be expressed in a public school if it is a specific religion I believe that all other religions should get equal time.

As I also mentioned in my post, when I was taught about evolution we were taught that it is only one theory and other theories were also mentioned to us. We didn't spend a lot of time on evolution either.

ETA I feel that I should mention that I do not consider myself to be an atheist, socialist or agnostic. I also do not consider myself a Christian. None of those belief systems fit with my beliefs.

[maggie965]

Interesting. I'm not trying to fight the public expression of Christianity. I'm all for people expressing their own beliefs. However, in order to be expressed in a public school if it is a specific religion I believe that all other religions should get equal time.

As I also mentioned in my post, when I was taught about evolution we were taught that it is only one theory and other theories were also mentioned to us. We didn't spend a lot of time on evolution either.

Nevermind, it's not worth getting into this discussion again.

[Kater07]

Now personally, I will say I am 100% for gay marriage because I feel that the world as a whole needs more love and tolerance and less punishment of people for loving one another. I also do not feel that anything from the bible should be able to be used as a reason to make a law.

As for creationism, I would be all for creationism being taught in schools as long as all other possible myths and theories of creation are taught as well. I do not think it should be taught as part of a science class, perhaps a second class specifically for this topic though since there are so many different theories and myths behind it. To only teach the Christian idea would infringe upon the rights of children from other religions in my opinion and children with no religion.

I personally would be appalled if my son's school started teaching him creationism without explaining that it is only one theory or idea. If we want him to be taught Christian beliefs and ideas without learning other beliefs and ideas at the same time we would have him in a religious school. Otherwise I believe the values and ideas of one religion have no place in public schools without all other religions being considered and incorporated. I even struggle with the pledge since it says "one nation, under god" and not everyone of the families at these schools believe in god.

Evolution does have a scientific basis though so I think it should stay in science class. When I was in high school and we were taught about evolution we were very specifically told that it is only one theory and then a quick brush up of some other theories followed.

I also do not think that creationism should be taught in schools before high school or middle school when it can be chosen as a class by the student with permission from the parents. Personally, we plan on teaching Dom about all of the different religions even though we do not practice any of them. If he wishes to practice a religion some day we will be completely supportive of that.

/end my super long post

For those of you in other countries, how does it work there? What do you think of either topic or both? I'm really interested in opinions from everyone here.


Thanks for taking the words right out of my head. I feel exactly this way, right down to how we will be teaching our children as much as we can about all different religions and schools needing permission to teach religious views to my kids. I am in the United States and was raised in The Church of God.

The words "under God" were added to the pledge long after it was written. I do say the pledge because I want my children to be taught to respect those who have fought and died for our freedoms, to me, the flag represents all those who have died for our freedoms. I want to be a good role model and show respect to those who deserve it.

I also believe that if 1 religious group is considered, all should be considered.

DITTO DITTO DITTO every word you said!

[opeysmama]

The separation between church and state was intended to protect the church against government interference, NOT the other way around.

[Faith True]

I am appalled that the public schools only seem to teach evolution. When I was in 7th grade- my teacher refused to teach anything about the "theory" called creationism (the only truth in my opinion- no offense to you) And I was very upset that this was the way things were run. It is so unfortunate that I would have to send my child to a Christian school to hear the truth- and I can't afford $5,000 a year. I would love them to teach it as a possiblilty at least, since I understand not everyone shares my beliefs or the ones I want to pass on to my children. I don't want my child hearing what I know is false and them spoon feeding it to my child as truth.

Even when they teach evolution it they say it is a theory so why even teach it if you aren't going to share all spectrums. :shrug

I also have to say that I 100% agree with Dianne's statements

[opeysmama]

And, evolution has no scientific basis, other than a theory. They can NOT replicate it at all, not one single minute proof has ever been found. Thus it is only theory. Therefore evolution should have NO place in any science course, at all.

[maggie965]

And, evolution has no scientific basis, other than a theory. They can NOT replicate it at all, not one single minute proof has ever been found. Thus it is only theory. Therefore evolution should have NO place in any science course, at all.

Yep!:clap:clap

[opeysmama]

This is exactly what the public schools do with evolutionary teaching. Evolution is simply one theory, not fact, and much of the so-called " science" of evolution has been scientifically refuted, but evolutionists don't want to believe it. It is, in fact, a belief system. I think all theories should be taught, if ANY are taught. Read more about it at http://www.answersingenesis.org/

If anyone thinks our kids are not being taught a religion in public school, think again. Secular humanism is in fact a belief system. Separation of church and state is just being used as a mechanism that atheists, socialists and agnostics use as an weapon to promote their own religion/belief system and fight any public expression of Christianity and it is clearly not being used in the spirit with which it was first created. :)


Bravo! Absolutely perfectly stated!

[Tiffikat]

Interestingly enough they are currently trying to do something that may be able to replicate the big bang on a smaller scale in Geneva I believe, starting on Wednesday.

A lot of science is only theory and cannot be replicated. I've always been taught in science classes that in generally nothing is ever fact in science because new information is discovered every day and many theories are still unproven. In fact I'm taking a biology class right now where my professor emphasizes this every time we do a lab or have a lecture.

ETA, even though it's slightly off topic here is the link to that.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jj8FEmbV51mefR7brcbExIAOOtTQD931VSPO1

[Miss Chris]

This is such a touchy subject... But there is scientific evidence behind evolution, there is not behind creationism. I personally am a Christian who believes in evolution by divine intevention. That being said, I do not believe there is a place for creationism in our public school. I am struggling for the words to say all of this without offending anyone so I am going to stop while ahead( or at leatst while I think I am ahead!)

[jorgies5]

I am a Christian and I believe in the Bible and here are my concerns about same-sex marriage as it pertains to the separation of church and state (I am actually just going to quote an official from my church because he states it so much better than I ever could):

"Legalizing same-sex marriage will affect a wide spectrum of government activities and policies. Once a state government declares that same-sex unions are a civil right, those governments almost certainly will enforce a wide variety of other policies intended to ensure that there is no discrimination against same-sex couples. This may well place “church and state on a collision course.” [16]

The prospect of same-sex marriage has already spawned legal collisions with the rights of free speech and of action based on religious beliefs. For example, advocates and government officials in certain states already are challenging the long-held right of religious adoption agencies to follow their religious beliefs and only place children in homes with both a mother and a father. As a result, Catholic Charities in Boston has stopped offering adoption services.

Other advocates of same-sex marriage are suggesting that tax exemptions and benefits be withdrawn from any religious organization that does not embrace same-sex unions. [17] Public accommodation laws are already being used as leverage in an attempt to force religious organizations to allow marriage celebrations or receptions in religious facilities that are otherwise open to the public. Accrediting organizations in some instances are asserting pressure on religious schools and universities to provide married housing for same-sex couples. Student religious organizations are being told by some universities that they may lose their campus recognition and benefits if they exclude same-sex couples from club membership. [18]

Many of these examples have already become the legal reality in several nations of the European Union, and the European Parliament has recommended that laws guaranteeing and protecting the rights of same-sex couples be made uniform across the EU. [19] Thus, if same-sex marriage becomes a recognized civil right, there will be substantial conflicts with religious freedom. And in some important areas, religious freedom may be diminished."

[kjbstevens]

I'm only 26 and we were taught actual Bible as a class in intermediate school in Virginia Public Schools as class on Thursday mornings just like Art or Music. You could opt out and I did because I realized I could hang out and eat ice cream with the other 2 kids on the playground that opted out instead of doing that though. I've never been a religious person but think things are as separate as they intended. It was just meant for the church not to rule the country, not for the leader to not be religious and stand by their beliefs. I think they should just leave out the evolution/creationism both until college where it can be intelligently debated unless it's a private school though.

[Chreamps]

kjbstevens posted:

You could opt out and I did because I realized I could hang out and eat ice cream with the other 2 kids on the playground that opted out instead of doing that though.


:rofl2:rofl2:rofl2

Love your honesty!

[maggie965]

This is such a touchy subject... But there is scientific evidence behind evolution, there is not behind creationism. I personally am a Christian who believes in evolution by divine intevention. That being said, I do not believe there is a place for creationism in our public school. I am struggling for the words to say all of this without offending anyone so I am going to stop while ahead( or at leatst while I think I am ahead!)

What scientific evidence is there? That there was a bang and the world was created? What about the evidence they are finding that Jesus lived? That proves that He was not a myth?

[Chreamps]

maggie965 posted:

What scientific evidence is there? Here you go:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/lines_01

ETA:

Another link about evidence that Jesus lived:

http://sonic.net/sentinel/naij3.html

[Tiffikat]

Personally, I am quite confident that Jesus as a man did exist and was an important historical person. However, I don't know that I believe he was the son of god or even that god exists.

[maggie965]

maggie965 posted:

Here you go:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/lines_01

ETA:

Another link about evidence that Jesus lived:

http://sonic.net/sentinel/naij3.html

Maybe I should clarify. I believe that over time our features and thought process have changed, evolved if you will. But I thought the premise of this theory was that life started as a big bang or as an amoeba that evolved into all the varieties of living creatures? Where is that supported?

ETA: and I do believe life has existed for billions of years. I'm not sure quite how to explain it but I don't believe our definition of "day" is that same as the biblical perception of "day".

[missys_bits]

Here's my view...and please no stones =) I am a Christian. Our nation was founded by men and women seeking the freedom to practice Christianity. Our constitution was written not to grant freedom FROM religion but freedom OF religion. Some of the atheist/agnostic portion of our populace would much rather it be FROM than OF. The government is not free to enforce any religion on us. But, once upon a time, elections in this county were won and lost by the pulpit.

I support teaching evolution and creationism equally. Each is considered a "theory" and IMO should be given equal time in the public classroom. I feel it is up to me as mama to make sure that my son knows my belief system and why I believe it to be valid. Having said that, we were raised to respect other faiths and I will do my best to teach him the same.

[Chreamps]

maggie965 posted:

Maybe I should clarify. I believe that over time our features and thought process have changed, evolved if you will. But I thought the premise of this theory was that life started as a big bang or as an amoeba that evolved into all the varieties of living creatures? Where is that supported?

So sorry, try this (http://www.big-bang-theory.com/)(actually not an explosion, but an "expansion").

[missys_bits]

Maybe I should clarify. I believe that over time our features and thought process have changed, evolved if you will. But I thought the premise of this theory was that life started as a big bang or as an amoeba that evolved into all the varieties of living creatures? Where is that supported?

ETA: and I do believe life has existed for billions of years. I'm not sure quite how to explain it but I don't believe our definition of "day" is that same as the biblical perception of "day".

I agree with some of this. and its probably off topic a bit, but many of the biblical miracles can be explained scientificly. Does that mean they werent miracles...or just that God uses the "natural" for his own purpose? The burning bush, the parting of the red sea, even the flood have been examined. Natural phenomena can be used to explain or at least theorize how these events might be scientificly possible. It doesnt reduce to me at all their significance or that it wasnt God's hand, it just means that the Creator was at work.

[mama_pajama]

I am a Christian and take my faith very seriously. Here's the problem I have with teaching anything religious in public schools...where does it end? If a teacher is teaching creationism and she happens to be a member of a denomination with beliefs that I don't share, I may not want her answering my child's questions because she could be conveying things that I don't believe. At least with evolution being taught, I know where I stand. I can tell my kids ahead of time that we don't believe that humans evolved from other life forms, that God created us and all other forms of life, but that animals do evolve within their species to meet the demands of their environment. I can tell my kids that the evolution they'll learn in school is not what we believe in. But if a teacher is adding their own spin to creationism or any other religious topic, I can't always foresee the things they will say, nor can I always count on my kids to ask me to clarify it for them. I'm all for my kids hearing other points of view so they can make their own decisions, but I want to at least know what they're hearing so I can put in my two cents. ;)

[Thena]

I like this from online:
One should understand that "separation of church and state" is not actually a law. It is a doctrine, or a legal concept, that has been implemented by the various courts primarily over the last fifty years. If this concept, as originally understood, would have been applied with consistency over the years, America would certainly be a different country right now. Religious expression would flourish, and the courts would not be micromanaging the religious life of the American people.
The doctrine of "separation of church and state" has been used, and is being used, to effectively purge religion from the public square. The historical perspective on church/state issues reveals a much different story. The government was to accommodate the religious communities; religion and religious expression were to be encouraged.

[Thena]

"We are forced, however, to work with the existing court doctrines. Therefore, what does the phrase mean today as it is applied in American public policy? The First Amendment, which prohibited any "law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," has evolved into something entirely new. During the last generation, the courts, at all levels, have ruled in ways that essentially guarantee the freedom from religion, instead of the freedom of religion"

[maggie965]

maggie965 posted:



So sorry, try this (http://www.big-bang-theory.com/)(actually not an explosion, but an "expansion").

Great article, thanks for sharing! It does point to a single moment of creation though! And if you click the link at the bottom it goes on to describe why the author believes there must be "some kind of God" Very interesting!

Oh and while I was reading this, I had a thought! Smell the smoke!!! :lol:lol:lol Creationism as a thought is primarily Old Testament so that means this was believed BEFORE Christianity even came about (in the earthly realm)! Yet Christians are constantly being criticized for pushing their agenda!

[missys_bits]

I agree with all of that Thena!

[Microferk ~ Miki Ferkul]

Here is another interesting article that addresses this issue:

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html

[sarahvm]

I am a Christian and take my faith very seriously. Here's the problem I have with teaching anything religious in public schools...where does it end? If a teacher is teaching creationism and she happens to be a member of a denomination with beliefs that I don't share, I may not want her answering my child's questions because she could be conveying things that I don't believe. At least with evolution being taught, I know where I stand. I can tell my kids ahead of time that we don't believe that humans evolved from other life forms, that God created us and all other forms of life, but that animals do evolve within their species to meet the demands of their environment. I can tell my kids that the evolution they'll learn in school is not what we believe in. But if a teacher is adding their own spin to creationism or any other religious topic, I can't always foresee the things they will say, nor can I always count on my kids to ask me to clarify it for them. I'm all for my kids hearing other points of view so they can make their own decisions, but I want to at least know what they're hearing so I can put in my two cents. ;)

I agree completely!:)
This is exactly what I was trying to put into words and couldn't get it out-
I would prefer my children's religious instruction to come from myself, my dh and my church. We all have to choice of where to attend church and who teaches our children's sunday school classes, etc. We have no choice on what public school they attend and there is a huge range of beliefs among teachers. I believe that teachers and administrators (and I am a former teacher and wife of an administrator) can teach and demonstrate character and values to students without teaching Christianity or other religions.
My faith is so important to me, and I deeply desire that my children grow to love and serve God as they mature, but I (along with my dh and pastor) want to be the one to guide them.
Just my 2 cents worth!:)

Sarah

[[michele]]

This is such a touchy subject... But there is scientific evidence behind evolution, there is not behind creationism. I personally am a Christian who believes in evolution by divine intevention. That being said, I do not believe there is a place for creationism in our public school. I am struggling for the words to say all of this without offending anyone so I am going to stop while ahead( or at leatst while I think I am ahead!)

:agree ITA!


I also believe that sooner rather than later, Christians will be a minority in this country and the agnostics, atheists, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. will not want Creationism or Intelligent Design taught in school.

:) Michele

[Thena]

If you aren't sure about the existence of God and you really want to know in your heart and spirit if the Bible is His Word and is true; then simply ask Him to reveal Himself to you through His Holy Spirit. If you are sincere and open and really want to know that He exists, He will do this. If not, if you just want to have a hot debate or put down others who do believe; then there is no reason to discuss and disagree. It serves no purpose but to upset both sides.

I personally believe and as I get older the more I believe and the glader I am that I believe. It bothers me to see our schools say no prayers at commencement; to see our city have to take down historical landmarks because they are crosses and remove badges from uniforms because they had that landmark in their design.

Yes, we are teaching religion when we have to comply to those rulings, secular humanism and atheism is being forced on us because it is more politically correct.

Unfortunately during the end times we will all be forced to be one religion under the Anti Christ and it will happen because we have taken God out of our nation.
Under the AC we will not have the freedom to debate and discuss these things.

I don't usually get involved in topics which can cause debate, but as someone said: if you don't stand for something; you will fall for anything.

I love all of my friends, Christian and non Christian and if I share my faith with them; it is because I love them, never to put them down.

[Tiffikat]

I don't think secular humanism and atheism is being forced on anyone. I do however think it is extremely important to respect people of all religions and teaching about one (Christianity) does not do this, just as teaching only Buddhism in schools would likely upset many people as well.

I agree completely about wanting to be the one to guide my child in a world with so many different beliefs.

Miki, that article you posted was very interesting. It is also very similar to what I learned in my American History class over the summer.

[hazelsmrf]

Do you not have options of religious and non religious public schools there? Where I live there are catholic schools and regular public schools, but both are part of the public school system. Anyways I personally was raised going to a catholic elementary school, (where of course religion was taught, and there was no choice in the matter) and attended sunday school (well, really monday night school in my case) on top of that. I did have friends attending the "regular" public school in high school, and they were given a choice of two subjects, religion (which was catholic doctrine because that is the big religion here) or morality, which was uh, you know, don't steal, don't do bad things etc, but with all mentions of religion taken out. This seems to me to be the way to go. Either way the base message is the same. I think creationism should then be taught in that religion class if you choose to take it, and evolution should be taught in the science classes. (this is the case here, but I also think that sex ed should be mandatory and taught the same as biology or anything else... it is a human function and people need to understand their bodies).

Anyways as for gay marriage, I've never understood the argument against it, well civil unions anyways. It doesn't take anything away from your marriage, or your life, to give other people the right to have the same freedoms. And I also don't believe that churches should be under any obligation to recognize those marriages, but I think the government should. Then again I view churches as private organizations and I think they should be allowed to restrict membership how they see fit.

[Microferk ~ Miki Ferkul]

yes, we have public schools, charter school (that are often funded with tax dollars) and parochial and private schools (which are not funded by govt with the exception of some remedial programs like speech, reading, etc.)
My DH and I were raised in the Catholic School system, and our oldest son went K-8, then went over to the public school for high school.
Amazing that they had Christian hymns in the holiday program, prayed before sporting events and prayed at Commencement.
Our younger 2 are in the public schools and go to PSR (Parish School of Religion) for their formal Catholic education.
Funny thing was- I went to anl all girls Catholic high school and we had science that taught evolution as the most plausible *scientific* theory (which differs ferom what people gernerally think defines "theory"), were taught World Religions and a very comprehensive sexual educatoin program.

[Tiffikat]

Julie, that is exactly how I feel about gay marriage and creationism.

In Ohio where I live there are options of religious schools, however, these do usually cost additional money and can be very expensive. They don't offer religion or morality as classes, but i think it would be interesting to see a world religions class in high schools.

ETA I think Sex Ed is a must because while I will teach Dom what I want him to know, I simply don't know everything there is to know about the subject to teach him all of the details.

[SteinwaysMom/DebraTope]

I think you have to go back into our nation's history and look at the original intent behind church-state separation issues. Our nation was founded by individuals who held a Judeo-Christian moral/ethical worldview and I believe the intent was to prevent any one religious denomination from being made an official state church.

What is happening now is there are groups of individuals who want to remove Judeo-Christian influences from the sphere of government altogether, which is where you get a lot of clashing ideologies. In England, for example, there is a demand by some for sharia law to be enacted - personally I find that this form of 'multiculturalism' goes too far. If you truly want all religions and cultures to be represented you are going to have to deal with the fact not all religions and cultures share America's core values so where do you draw the line?

I also believe that some individuals who claim a more atheistic/humanistic worldview are just as deeply entrenched in their own form of ideology as some of the religious folks they have issues with. I don't care to have their zealotry imposed on me either. For example, creationism doesn't belong in public schools but then you have individuals who approach evolution with a religious fervor that creates a hostility to questioning and inquiry. To be honest, I am sick of our schools being used as experiments for various social activist agendas - they should focus on teaching core education fundamentals and leave all that other stuff to parents.

[Thena]

A good link:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-wall/wal-g004.html

[Trina]

Gay marriage...It doesn't take anything away from your marriage, or your life, to give other people the right to have the same freedoms.

Oh, wow, Julie...you summed up in a few words what I have been trying for DAYS to say :clap Bravo, dear, bravo :agree

[Hollie]

Do you not have options of religious and non religious public schools there?

To my knowledge, no. Charter schools are still subject to all the major regulations that regular public schools have. I've never heard of a religious public school here in the States. I think I'd consider it an oxymoron.

[Microferk ~ Miki Ferkul]

More interesting reads:

http://www.ajc.org/atf/cf/%7B42D75369-D582-4380-8395-D25925B85EAF%7D/Sep_Church_State_2005.pdf

http://www.friendsjournal.org/separation-church-and-state

[SteinwaysMom/DebraTope]

To my knowledge, no. Charter schools are still subject to all the major regulations that regular public schools have. I've never heard of a religious public school here in the States. I think I'd consider it an oxymoron.

I work for a charter school and we are basically under the same rules and regs as a public school. What I like is they pretty much stick to teaching academics, which is the way it should be.

I think there was an Islamic themed charter school in the news that ran into trouble because they crossed the line. So some of these schools could be founded as 'multicultural' but end up crossing the line. I think it's tough w/an Islamic school because establishing an Islamic state under sharia law is such an integral part of that faith, at least among some groups.

http://www.startribune.com/local/17406054.html

[hazelsmrf]

Funny thing was- I went to anl all girls Catholic high school and we had science that taught evolution as the most plausible *scientific* theory (which differs ferom what people gernerally think defines "theory"), were taught World Religions and a very comprehensive sexual educatoin program.

It was the same with me, catholic private high school, with very extensive sex ed and evolution taught (but creationism was taught too, but only in the religion classes)

[Tiffikat]

Very interesting Miki!

I pulled this from the first page of the first article you posted:

"To paraphrase the U.S. Supreme Court in Everson v. Board of
Education (1947), if the principle of separation of church and state
is to have substance in America, it should mean at least this: The
state must not behave as if it were a church or a synagogue. Nor
may it serve as an agent for any religion. The state must not do for
citizens things which, in their rightful free exercise of religion, they
are perfectly capable of doing for themselves. For government to
intrude itself into religious practices, or to seek to impose particular
religious values or beliefs on citizens who do not share them, constitutes
a danger to Americans of all faiths. The state must be neutral,
not partisan, in matters of religion, and while there has never been
absolute separation of church and state in America, many religions
have thrived here, in large measure, because of general adherence to
the principle."

I bolded the part that seemed the most relevant to me on this topic.

[arenee]

{{{{{{stepping up to my soap box}}}}}}}}
{{{{{{clearing my throat}}}}}}}}}

I agree in the separation of Church and State.............but it is very blurry

I believe in the pledge in school--I think kids need to feel they are a part of something bigger than themselves......I believe in the prayer in school............I think it gives every one a chance to take a moment to breath, regroup and get centered. I feel one of the things we fail at teaching our children is to be a peace with themselves.

I believe in a woman's right to choice in respects to her body. I believe a woman has the right to an abortion--not multiple abortions. But where do you draw the line?

I believe it is a parents right and responsibility to teach all respects of religion.

I believe that gay marriages are ok. I would love for everyone to share the joys and struggles of marriage.

I really don't see where and why I have the right to impose my beliefs onto others.

I do believe that if we dont do what we can to make our country stronger we are a risk to lose it.

Thank you for your time
{{{{{{taking a drink of water}}}}}}}}}
{{{{{{stepping off to my soap box}}}}}}}}

[Tiffikat]

I agree about teaching children to be at peace with themselves. I think it would be great for schools to have at least a few moments of silence each day where students can reflect, write in journals, pray, meditate, etc based upon their own belief systems.

[JCSimon]

The separation between church and state was intended to protect the church against government interference, NOT the other way around.

Actually, that's not completely true. It was meant to go both ways. If you look at the history of England, you'll see that, depending on who was the monarch at the moment and what religion he/she was, all others were persecuted as "heretics."

Even in different places in the US, at different times, religion became too much a part of government.....ergo, the Salem witch trials, for example.

The separation of church and state was meant to insure that NO one religion or belief system took over the government, as well as to insure that the government couldn't foint one on the people.

[Chreamps]

Miki, thanks for all the links! Read most of the first one (bookmarked it for later reading) and also bookmarked the other two. I've been at a football game this evening and wanted to read them but not enough time.

Personally, I'm not trying to argue with anyone. I find others' views interesting and educational. I do believe in God and consider myself a Christian even though I do not attend church for personal reasons I won't go into. Guess I am more spiritual than religious.

Thanks for having the courage to post this topic, Tiffany, as it has been very thought provoking and educational.

[Thena]

I think everyone responded with kindness on a very sensitive subject.

[Stacey Crossley]

The separation between church and state was intended to protect the church against government interference, NOT the other way around.


I was just getting ready to say this, glad I read down. This is absolute truth, it was never meant to take God out of our schools, it has just been interpreted over the years this way. Separation of church and state was initiated to keep the church from being silenced by government.

While I absolutely respect anyone's God-given right to feel how they do, this is, in part, why I now homeschool our youngest son. We start our day with Bible lessons. ;)

[Jennifer Barrette]

schools should focus on teaching core education fundamentals and leave all that other stuff to parents.

Totally agree with this statement.

[strangejen]

Our nation was founded by men and women seeking the freedom to practice Christianity.

I thought it was because Europe was getting crowded and the rulers of the time wanted more land and more natural resources to exploit? ;)

If anyone is really interested in this subject and likes to read -- and if you can find the book -- I'd suggest "The Fourth R -- Conflicts over Religion in America's Public Schools." (http://www.amazon.com/Fourth-R-Joan-DelFattore/dp/0300102178/ref=si3_rdr_bb_product) My dad recommended it to me, and it's an amazing book.

Here's my Amazon review for those who don't want to look it up (and these are also my thoughts on the subject in general):

For me, the biggest eye-opener from reading this book was just how different the beliefs are, even within different Christian denominations -- even concerning something as seemingly innocent as prayer. The history of the violence between denominations in America was eye-opening, too.

It made me realize that while it's nice to have the whole "God is good, God is great" thing reiterated at school, there's no way I would want my son's religious understanding influenced by the theology of whichever public school teacher he happened to be assigned to that year. A religious education is something to be provided at home and at church, not at school. (Unless you'd like to specifically send your child to a religious school, which is your choice.) This book really made me understand why this is so important.

[scrappychic]

{{{{{{stepping up to my soap box}}}}}}}}
{{{{{{clearing my throat}}}}}}}}}

I agree in the separation of Church and State.............but it is very blurry

I believe in the pledge in school--I think kids need to feel they are a part of something bigger than themselves......I believe in the prayer in school............I think it gives every one a chance to take a moment to breath, regroup and get centered. I feel one of the things we fail at teaching our children is to be a peace with themselves.

I believe in a woman's right to choice in respects to her body. I believe a woman has the right to an abortion--not multiple abortions. But where do you draw the line?

I believe it is a parents right and responsibility to teach all respects of religion.

I believe that gay marriages are ok. I would love for everyone to share the joys and struggles of marriage.

I really don't see where and why I have the right to impose my beliefs onto others.

I do believe that if we dont do what we can to make our country stronger we are a risk to lose it.

Thank you for your time
{{{{{{taking a drink of water}}}}}}}}}
{{{{{{stepping off to my soap box}}}}}}}}

:clap Well said!

[ashtina]

I am a Christian and take my faith very seriously. Here's the problem I have with teaching anything religious in public schools...where does it end? If a teacher is teaching creationism and she happens to be a member of a denomination with beliefs that I don't share, I may not want her answering my child's questions because she could be conveying things that I don't believe.

To be honest, I am sick of our schools being used as experiments for various social activist agendas - they should focus on teaching core education fundamentals and leave all that other stuff to parents.


Well said! It is for these (and a few other) reasons that I chose to start homeschooling my children. These are things that I feel very strongly about.


I think everyone responded with kindness on a very sensitive subject.

and I agree Thena, I am really happy to see how this thread has gone :)

[movefearlessly]

If you aren't sure about the existence of God and you really want to know in your heart and spirit if the Bible is His Word and is true; then simply ask Him to reveal Himself to you through His Holy Spirit. If you are sincere and open and really want to know that He exists, He will do this. If not, if you just want to have a hot debate or put down others who do believe; then there is no reason to discuss and disagree. It serves no purpose but to upset both sides.

I personally believe and as I get older the more I believe and the glader I am that I believe. It bothers me to see our schools say no prayers at commencement; to see our city have to take down historical landmarks because they are crosses and remove badges from uniforms because they had that landmark in their design.

Yes, we are teaching religion when we have to comply to those rulings, secular humanism and atheism is being forced on us because it is more politically correct.

Unfortunately during the end times we will all be forced to be one religion under the Anti Christ and it will happen because we have taken God out of our nation.
Under the AC we will not have the freedom to debate and discuss these things.

I don't usually get involved in topics which can cause debate, but as someone said: if you don't stand for something; you will fall for anything.

I love all of my friends, Christian and non Christian and if I share my faith with them; it is because I love them, never to put them down.

thank you - beautifully put!!

i struggle each day with my faith. if i believe (and i do) - well, i'm pretty ticked at God right now. doesn't mean He can't take it. doesn't mean He isn't there. just means i'm a brat. what i KNOW is this: when doctors told my husband it was over, take me off life-support, i was for all intents and purposes DEAD - he listened to God instead. when doctors told us i'd never walk again, never lose the ventilator or the catheter or the wheelchair - we both listened to God instead. i asked God for help the night of my accident, and i've asked Him for it a lot since. He always does. there are doctors who treated me who have no explanation for the progress i've made, because the only thing they rely on is THEIR knowledge. if i didn't have at least an idea of God's existence, how would i have known where to turn in my hour of need?

and people are afraid any more to really share their core values and beliefs, which really only retards mental, emotional and spiritual growth. i've been wrong before, and i'm sure i'll be wrong again - but how would i know that without someone teaching me? if school is to be a place to learn, every possibility should be taught.

[ccubed]

Our younger 2 are in the public schools and go to PSR (Parish School of Religion) for their formal Catholic education.
Funny thing was- I went to anl all girls Catholic high school and we had science that taught evolution as the most plausible *scientific* theory (which differs ferom what people gernerally think defines "theory"), were taught World Religions and a very comprehensive sexual educatoin program.

Ditto! I went to Catholic school as well, and yes, evolution was taught. We were always taught that it does not matter which "theory" you choose to entertain as long as you understand that in the very beginning of all of it there was GOD. My freshmen year theology class was spent doing a survey of world religions and sex ed was also part of the curriculum in both junior high and high school, in high school it was included in our Health Education class, even though we all knew as unmarried Catholics we were expected to abstain. Overall I guess it was just more important that we were informed enough to make good decisions.

I find it strange that a Catholic school education seems to be more liberal in its approach than some public American schools. I have always felt that my education was top-notch and am very appreciative of my parents' sacrifices.

[Microferk ~ Miki Ferkul]

Ditto! I went to Catholic school as well, and yes, evolution was taught. We were always taught that it does not matter which "theory" you choose to entertain as long as you understand that in the very beginning of all of it there was GOD. My freshmen year theology class was spent doing a survey of world religions and sex ed was also part of the curriculum in both junior high and high school, in high school it was included in our Health Education class, even though we all knew as unmarried Catholics we were expected to abstain. Overall I guess it was just more important that we were informed enough to make good decisions.

I find it strange that a Catholic school education seems to be more liberal in its approach than some public American schools. I have always felt that my education was top-notch and am very appreciative of my parents' sacrifices.

You know- I don't really follow the Catholic faith much anymore, but since DH & vowed to raise our children as Catholics when we were married in the Church, we do just that. And what I've grown to appreciate is that even where I disagree with certain key issues in the Church, I appreciate that when the schools taught us the doctrine, it was alqays with great detail and explanation WHY is that way, you know? They didn't tell just say "no" to sin, but they taught you the psychology why, how it affected you spiritually and your elationship to God. I always appreciated the fact that we were always given reasons to the Scripture. SO I AM glad we aarerasing the kids in the faith too. So while they may grow up and diverge on some issues, they've got a solid foundation for their moral development, IMO.

[LDesjardin]

Well, this has certainly been an interesting discussion. I hope it's okay for me to step up on that proverbial soapbox too.

- I believe in the "separation in church and state," that Congress should make no law establishing religion in this country. I also must say that I want to be the one to teach religion and spirituality to my children. However, if my child wants to congregate with other students of like faith and pray he should have the right to do that. I feel the same way about students of other faiths.

- I believe a woman has a right to do with her own body what she wishes. However, the life inside her is a separate entity, a separate soul and to destroy that is murder.

- I absolutely believe in the pledge in schools. We must teach civic responsibility and patriotism at a young age, as well as basic respect for our country and those who fight for our freedoms.

- I do not believe in gay marriage. I think it would be detrimental for society and would dilute the meaning of marriage. I think homosexuality is immoral and to allow gay marriage is essentially a government sanction of that immorality. However, I have love and respect for other people, including gays and lesbians, and practice tolerance and teach it to my children. Just because I disagree with something does not give me the license to berate them, abuse them or hate them.

There is an article here (http://pewforum.org/events/?EventID=180) that explains how I feel about this as well as a link to an opposing point of view. Both are well written and make some interesting points.

- I don't believe I have the right to impose my beliefs on others. I have the right to voice my beliefs and others have the right to disagree or to simply not listen.

- I believe that everyone in the country that desires to succeed and make bundles of money should be able to work very hard, take significant risk and make very smart decisions and become obscenely wealthy without being unfairly penalized by our tax system.

- I believe that people should pay for their own health care and work hard to make a life for their families. However, I believe as a Christian, it is my duty to reach out a hand to someone who has fallen or who needs help and help them up in whatever ways I can - financially, spiritually, emotionally or otherwise.

- I believe we live in the most amazing country in the world because of capitalism, because of democracy, because we are allowed and encouraged to debate these issues at length. I wake up every day grateful to be an American. But I have an intense feeling of dread that where this country is heading is socialism. And that makes me very, very sad.

[danger girl]

I read in the Sarah Palin...Grandmother (http://www.digishoptalk.com/boards/showthread.php?t=143210) thread that people don't want schools to teach sex ed, that sex ed is something that should be taught at home. I feel the same way about religion. I wouldn't want anyone else teaching my child their beliefs in a way that they were expected to learn and follow and be graded on - as absolute. I'm all for sharing your beliefs in a world religion overview kind of way. I think the more you can learn about other religions and beliefs, the stronger your own convictions become.

[hazelsmrf]

Hope you don't mind me replying to this in the spirit of debate, however please do note that I am Canadian so my views are skewed!


- I believe in the "separation in church and state," that Congress should make no law establishing religion in this country. I also must say that I want to be the one to teach religion and spirituality to my children. However, if my child wants to congregate with other students of like faith and pray he should have the right to do that. I feel the same way about students of other faiths. I agree, your children should have the right to congregate and pray and play with whoever they want to. I was not aware that this was an issue?

I believe a woman has a right to do with her own body what she wishes. However, the life inside her is a separate entity, a separate soul and to destroy that is murder.I support a woman's right to choose, but I also think that counselling should be mandatory prior to having an abortion and that they should only be allowed in the first trimester or in cases where the mother's life is in danger.


I absolutely believe in the pledge in schools. We must teach civic responsibility and patriotism at a young age, as well as basic respect for our country and those who fight for our freedoms.Growing up we used to have to sing the national anthem every morning, I hear they had that taken out of most schools here. what a shame. One line of it goes "God keep our land, glorious and free", I guess that offended someone, and that is silly. It seems like a pretty non denominational song to me!

I do not believe in gay marriage. I think it would be detrimental for society and would dilute the meaning of marriage. I think homosexuality is immoral and to allow gay marriage is essentially a government sanction of that immorality. However, I have love and respect for other people, including gays and lesbians, and practice tolerance and teach it to my children. Just because I disagree with something does not give me the license to berate them, abuse them or hate them. Immoral by whose standards though, the Church? I feel that this is one area where church doctrine is influencing law. In Canada gay marriage was made legal and honestly there has been no negative consequences to everyone's every day lives, nobody talks about it, there are no more public displays of affection (by ANY community) than there was a few years ago, I don't see how it has been detrimental to OUR society, and I honestly don't see us as being all that much different than our neighbours to the south.


I don't believe I have the right to impose my beliefs on others. I have the right to voice my beliefs and others have the right to disagree or to simply not listen. Agreed, I am always very interested to learn about other peoples beliefs though, I find it fascinating!

I believe that everyone in the country that desires to succeed and make bundles of money should be able to work very hard, take significant risk and make very smart decisions and become obscenely wealthy without being unfairly penalized by our tax system.Meh, I would agree if they worked proportionately harder than others, but the truth is that most of them don't. A lot of them get lucky. Right place, right time, or whatnot, and I am very happy for them, but I don't believe they deserve to pay less taxes proportionately than other people. They get so many tax cuts and it's really not fair. How is it fair that a multi millionaire with a REALLY good accountant can end up paying 10% tax, while I pay 35% with my pretty middle income? I guess this is more of a Canadian gripe because I'm not sure how it works in the U.S, but I am sure they don't pay nearly the percentage of tax that they should be paying, it's too easy to find tax shelters when you're loaded with money.

I believe that people should pay for their own health care and work hard to make a life for their families. However, I believe as a Christian, it is my duty to reach out a hand to someone who has fallen or who needs help and help them up in whatever ways I can - financially, spiritually, emotionally or otherwise. The poor have medicaid, the rich have no problems affording health insurance. It seems to be a huge issue for the middle bracket families though, I can just imagine if I had to pay over 1000$ in health insurance a month that I'd not be able to make ends meet and I make a pretty good salary, I honestly don't know how you guys do it. I think everyone should have access to free emergency health care. I think the best system would be a hybrid system, where there is both private and public sector health care ( I really wish they did that up here in Canada!) it seems like it would be the best of both worlds... accessible health care for everyone, and less wait times for those with insurance or willing to pay out of pocket.


I believe we live in the most amazing country in the world because of capitalism, because of democracy, because we are allowed and encouraged to debate these issues at length. I wake up every day grateful to be an American. But I have an intense feeling of dread that where this country is heading is socialism. And that makes me very, very sad.Well, many consider Canada socialist, so I guess I'm biased, but honestly... things can always change, one way or another, countries shift from liberal to conservative back to liberal all the time. I really doubt any shift here would be that dramatic, people talk politics a LOT around election times but truly, they go about their lives as they always have once it's said and done.

[Chreamps]

Some very good points, Julie! Love learning how things are run/done in other countries.

[Scorpiosue1102]

This is such a touchy subject... But there is scientific evidence behind evolution, there is not behind creationism. I personally am a Christian who believes in evolution by divine intevention. That being said, I do not believe there is a place for creationism in our public school. I am struggling for the words to say all of this without offending anyone so I am going to stop while ahead( or at leatst while I think I am ahead!)

Perfectly said.

If we are going to bring in creationism then we must bring in all religions into the mix. We can believe anything we want in this country and we need balance. I don't necessarily school is the place to do it.

[Scorpiosue1102]

To be honest, I am sick of our schools being used as experiments for various social activist agendas - they should focus on teaching core education fundamentals and leave all that other stuff to parents.


:clap:clap:clap

[Andrea C.]

:clap I love how "nice" this thread has stayed!! That doesn't always happen :)

I am all for gay marriages -- I just don't see how they effect me or my family at all and I don't think that it will in the future either. I have so many gay friends at work and I've been out to eat with some of the couples after work sometimes and they have such a fabulous relationship and I think if they want that recognized on a piece of paper then they should have it.

I'm twisted in thought as far as abortion -- I think that if the pregnancy is the result of incest or rape then an abortion should be allowed or if the mother is at risk because of the pregnancy it should be allowed but I just don't think that it should be allowed for just anyone or in every situation. I know of one young girl at our local high school who used to be friends with my niece and her mother had taken her for four abortion before she hit the 11th grade and I just find that insane to think about. I guess my main concern when it comes to not allowing abortion is that people will go back to the "old" way when they would find some gent in an alley with a coathanger to do the job and there were so many deaths and infections and problems there, I don't know how well I could handle hearing about it all the time if that started, does that make any sense :blush

I think that the pledge should be kept in schools. I want my son to grow up to be a patriotic person and to respect and honor those who have fought and/or died for him.

I think the days at school should start out with a few moments of silence and the students should be able to do what they want at that time whether it be to think, pray, meditate, doodle, whatever just as long as they aren't forced into a prayer because I know that not every child has the same beliefs and I would hate for someone who's not a Christian to force their beliefs on my child. ;)

And now, I'm going out on the pavement with Kelly to have some ice cream and just keep observing :giggle

[LDesjardin]

Immoral by whose standards though, the Church? I feel that this is one area where church doctrine is influencing law. In Canada gay marriage was made legal and honestly there has been no negative consequences to everyone's every day lives, nobody talks about it, there are no more public displays of affection (by ANY community) than there was a few years ago, I don't see how it has been detrimental to OUR society, and I honestly don't see us as being all that much different than our neighbours to the south.

In this country, probably like yours, the standard is determined by the majority (at least in theory). We don't live in a theocracy but there are a great number of traditional Christians here who believe this is immoral and they vote too.


Meh, I would agree if they worked proportionately harder than others, but the truth is that most of them don't. A lot of them get lucky. Right place, right time, or whatnot, and I am very happy for them, but I don't believe they deserve to pay less taxes proportionately than other people. They get so many tax cuts and it's really not fair. How is it fair that a multi millionaire with a REALLY good accountant can end up paying 10% tax, while I pay 35% with my pretty middle income? I guess this is more of a Canadian gripe because I'm not sure how it works in the U.S, but I am sure they don't pay nearly the percentage of tax that they should be paying, it's too easy to find tax shelters when you're loaded with money.

Wow! There are many self-made men and women in this country who worked very hard to get where they are. This is not to say that people of lower incomes don't work hard. I come from a working poor family so I know that's not true. Wealth comes from hard work, smart decisions, a willingness to take risk and yes, sometimes luck. And even if they didn't, even if they struck it rich or inherited it, it's still their money. I'm not suggesting that the rich shouldn't pay their fair share in taxes. I guess it's how you define fair. The rich pay proportionally more in taxes (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/16/business/tax.php) than other classes in this country. Yes, there are people who hide their money from the government, and there are many more who play by the rules. How is it okay to take proportionally more money from the wealthy forcibly to pay for more and more programs for the less fortunate? That is socialism.

I get upset when I see people who suggest that if it's just the rich who are getting the tax hikes, it doesn't matter to the rest of us. The rich in this country are those who are employers and producers. When you tax the rich, it will impact others who work and buy from those people. I know some people think it's evil of "big business" to lay off or cut loose workers, or when they hike their prices because of taxes, but these people are trying to run a business and yes, make a profit. That's capitalism. That's what has made this country what it is today.

Not only that but the people in this country, the wealthy, big businesses as well as many average folks are extremely generous with their money world-wide. Do you know that American Relief Agencies garnered more than $480 million for the victims of the Tsunami in South Asia (http://philanthropy.com/free/update/2005/01/2005011901.htm). Many of those donations were from American businesses.

In case you are wondering, I'm not in that tax bracket yet. But I will be before my retirement. Why? Well I can tell you it isn't dumb luck. It's because my husband and I have worked very hard, do smart things with our money and save like crazy. In some ways, I am one of those who are lucky because I married a man who works 100 times harder than most people do and he is just scary smart and has taught me a lot about smart ways to manage money. We both also come from working class families, so neither of us were rich to start with.


Oh heck I wish I could figure out that quote thing.

[Greedz]

- I do not believe in gay marriage. I think it would be detrimental for society and would dilute the meaning of marriage. I think homosexuality is immoral and to allow gay marriage is essentially a government sanction of that immorality. However, I have love and respect for other people, including gays and lesbians, and practice tolerance and teach it to my children. Just because I disagree with something does not give me the license to berate them, abuse them or hate them.


How does a union between two individuals who love one another equate the detiement of society? You say you teach tolerance, yet your words in the beginning seem contradictory to your teaching tolerance, kwim? Saying it is immoral is passing a judgement and that goes again the word of God, and again, doesn't jive with your teaching of tolerance.

I will never understand the rational of protecting something that is laughable at best in this day and age - 54 day marriages, third and forth marriages, annulments... And you're worried about gay people getting married? How does that work exactly? Can you clarify that point please?:shrug


As far as religion in schools - no place being there as we have many faiths in our school systems nation wide - and not one school can properly teach the teachings of all of them. Religious teachings should be handled by that particular religion.

[Lena Brandenburg]

Prefacing this with the fact that I haven't read any of the replies (sorry girls I'm hopping in late on this one!)...

It's interesting that you should ask this and that you are from Ohio, where it clearly states on our Governor's letterhead and on our capital building, "With God, All Things Are Possible". (Have you ever noticed that? What do you think about it?)

My personal Christianity aside, I believe in what they call "high wall separation", meaning that there is no place for government in religion and vice versa. I cringe when I receive a letter from the governor (I received on when graduating from a state college and I've received one regarding the election).

I do believe in teaching creationism along with evolutionary theory. I believe in studying the Bible in literary classes alongwith other religious texts. Not doing so makes students miss out on major literary allusions later on in life if they weren't exposed to the Bible at home. I just don't believe in teaching belief systems.

I don't believe that the Ten Commandments should be posted at the Courthouse. A defendant must wonder if he or she is being judged by the law of the land, or the law of the Bible.

I believe wholeheartedly in gay marriage.

I believe very strongly in the government staying out of personal affairs such as that.

[strangejen]

I married a man who works 100 times harder than most people do

I did, too, but he's in a service position keeping people safe and unfortunately, that doesn't necessarily pay well.

How does a union between two individuals who love one another equate the detiement of society?

I completely agree with this. I attend a church that is welcoming and affirming and we have SO many same-sex couples in our church who have adopted children -- MANY of them nationals, and not from over-seas -- who no one else wanted, who no one else would take care of. Were it not for these wonderful couples -- who are stable, have good homes, and are extremely loving parents -- I don't even want to think about what would happen to those children.

One couple I know was considering adopting a group of 4 children, and a person who is against same-sex couples being any kind of a family made some snarky comment to them. They simply replied: Will YOU take in these 4 children?

[smplgrl]

Hello my sister!!! You pretty much typed the exact thoughts in my head on both of your well thought out posts. ...although 15 years ago, I never would have thought I would "think" this way, I was quite liberal, but that was before I became a christian. Our country and the world looks very different through "God" colored glasses.


In this country, probably like yours, the standard is determined by the majority (at least in theory). We don't live in a theocracy but there are a great number of traditional Christians here who believe this is immoral and they vote too.


Wow! There are many self-made men and women in this country who worked very hard to get where they are. This is not to say that people of lower incomes don't work hard. I come from a working poor family so I know that's not true. Wealth comes from hard work, smart decisions, a willingness to take risk and yes, sometimes luck. And even if they didn't, even if they struck it rich or inherited it, it's still their money. I'm not suggesting that the rich shouldn't pay their fair share in taxes. I guess it's how you define fair. The rich pay proportionally more in taxes (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/16/business/tax.php) than other classes in this country. Yes, there are people who hide their money from the government, and there are many more who play by the rules. How is it okay to take proportionally more money from the wealthy forcibly to pay for more and more programs for the less fortunate? That is socialism.

I get upset when I see people who suggest that if it's just the rich who are getting the tax hikes, it doesn't matter to the rest of us. The rich in this country are those who are employers and producers. When you tax the rich, it will impact others who work and buy from those people. I know some people think it's evil of "big business" to lay off or cut loose workers, or when they hike their prices because of taxes, but these people are trying to run a business and yes, make a profit. That's capitalism. That's what has made this country what it is today.

Not only that but the people in this country, the wealthy, big businesses as well as many average folks are extremely generous with their money world-wide. Do you know that American Relief Agencies garnered more than $480 million for the victims of the Tsunami in South Asia (http://philanthropy.com/free/update/2005/01/2005011901.htm). Many of those donations were from American businesses.

In case you are wondering, I'm not in that tax bracket yet. But I will be before my retirement. Why? Well I can tell you it isn't dumb luck. It's because my husband and I have worked very hard, do smart things with our money and save like crazy. In some ways, I am one of those who are lucky because I married a man who works 100 times harder than most people do and he is just scary smart and has taught me a lot about smart ways to manage money. We both also come from working class families, so neither of us were rich to start with.


Oh heck I wish I could figure out that quote thing.

[strangejen]

I don't believe that the Ten Commandments should be posted at the Courthouse.

I totally agree. The big thing for me about this is those first couple:

You shall have no other gods before me.
You shall make no graven images.
You shall not take the name of the Lord in vain.
You shall honor the Sabbath and keep it holy.

(pardon me, these are from memory.)

So . . . NO ONE else can believe anything but Christianity. No one should make statues or art or take photographs. (There are denominations who believe that's what #2 means.) Make it illegial to say the full phrase of OMG. No one can drive or work on Sundays (which means no after-church trips to restaurants!)

And hey, while we're at it, let's bring back those 600 some laws of the Old Testament that restrict diets, agriculture, and what you can wear. (No mixed fibers, folks!)

I am of course being facetious. But there are people who believe in those interpretations of those first four, and I think most people would agree that there's no basis for national law concerning those issues.

Like my dad says, you can't legislate your personal morality.

[LDesjardin]

How does a union between two individuals who love one another equate the detiement of society? You say you teach tolerance, yet your words in the beginning seem contradictory to your teaching tolerance, kwim? Saying it is immoral is passing a judgement and that goes again the word of God, and again, doesn't jive with your teaching of tolerance.

I will never understand the rational of protecting something that is laughable at best in this day and age - 54 day marriages, third and forth marriages, annulments... And you're worried about gay people getting married? How does that work exactly? Can you clarify that point please?

Clearly we disagree about the meaning of tolerance. Just because I disagree with something doesn't mean I can't tolerate those who practice it or those who disagree with me. I recognize that there is a huge difference in one's behavior and one's value as a person. Tolerance and acceptance are two different things. I will tolerate homosexuality in our society. What I don't want to do is have the government sactioning something I and a great number of people, feel is immoral.

You know what, I have a brother who is gay. He is one of the most kind-hearted, trusting and sweetest people I know. I don't agree with his lifestyle, but I love my brother and I see beyond what I don't agree with and see his value as a human being. In some ways we are worlds apart, but this man is my brother. A few years back, he lost his partner to liver disease complicated by hepatitis. Was I there for him? Did I hold his hand and hold him and love on him and appreciate his grief? You bet I did. I tolerate his lifestyle because I love him as a person and a brother.

As for your comments about divorce, I can't argue with that. Marriage in our society has already lost so much of it's meaning and value and that's sad too.

[Greedz]

Clearly we disagree about the meaning of tolerance. Just because I disagree with something doesn't mean I can't tolerate those who practice it or those who disagree with me. I recognize that there is a huge difference in one's behavior and one's value as a person. Tolerance and acceptance are two different things. I will tolerate homosexuality in our society. What I don't want to do is have the government sactioning something I and a great number of people, feel is immoral.



Tolerance aside - there is no practice when it comes to being gay.

People don't walk around practicing being gay - I am sure your brother can attest to that. Do you honestly think gay people wake up one day and said, "Hey, I want society to hate me, and prevent me from having the same rights as straight people - why not be gay?"

You really think if there was a "choice" in being gay - that gay people would be?

Basically, your belief is - you teach tolerance for human beings who you view as less valuable then others based on a "behavior" that they have no control over.

[strangejen]

What I don't want to do is have the government sactioning something I and a great number of people, feel is immoral.

huh. that's how I feel about unjust war.

[scrappychic]

As for your comments about divorce, I can't argue with that. Marriage in our society has already lost so much of it's meaning and value and that's sad too.

Isn't it sad that our society allows marriage between a man and woman who are not completely committed to staying together through good and bad, are who do not take marriage seriously? But we do not allow two human beings who love each other no matter what gender they are, who intend to stay together for the rest of their lives because some people do not agree with their lifestyle. Isn't marriage about the commitment to be someone you love for the rest of their lives? I don't understand why were are still fighting for equal rights in this day and age. After gay couples got married in San Francisco, none of it affected my life or anyone else's I know. It was business as usual for the rest of us.

I can't help it but this reminds me of interracial couples having to fight for their right to get married. The Loving vs Virginia case (http://www.freedomtomarry.org/pdfs/mildred_loving-statement.pdf)sounds all too familiar here. I know this isn't about races, but the same issues are coming up again - basic civil rights.

[LDesjardin]

Tolerance aside - there is no practice when it comes to being gay.

People don't walk around practicing being gay - I am sure your brother can attest to that. Do you honestly think gay people wake up one day and said, "Hey, I want society to hate me, and prevent me from having the same rights as straight people - why not be gay?"

You really think if there was a "choice" in being gay - that gay people would be?

Basically, your belief is - you teach tolerance for human beings who you view as less valuable then others based on a "behavior" that they have no control over.

I have no answers that will satisfy you. I don't know what makes people gay. I don't think people climb out of bed one day and decide, "hey I'm gonna be gay." I don't think God makes people gay. I think they answer is somewhere in the middle. Perhaps "practice" was not the best word to use.

I NEVER said that homosexuals or anyone else were less valuable as human beings and I don't believe that. I do not hate gay people. I can't think of one person on this planet that I hate. You can believe that or not. I'm done with this thread, because now it has gotten downright mean-spirited.

[Joy Kuoha]

What a great thread! I love how we can all have different beliefs and still have a civil conversation!

I would not want schools to teach my children about religion - they go to Seminary an hour before school everyday for that reason. There, they learn about the scriptures and about God in the structure that we have within our religion. I would be afraid that if they learned about God and creation from a school teacher who does not have the religious foundation that my kids have already been taught at home and at church, the messages would be mixed and not easily understood and my kids would not get a grasp on their "theories". So, although the creationism "theory" should be addressed along side "evolution" in school, the teachers should not be allowed to teach their beliefs on the subject. Any religious training should be within our homes and churches.

Regarding same-sex marriage, I do not agree with it. Even though my only sister is gay and in a monogamous relationship, I do believe that it is wrong. So, even though I love my sister and I am happy that she is happy, I do not believe they should be married. It serves no purpose, IMO. Funny thing is... she agrees with me on this issue. And I more than tolerate her, I love her and want the best for her - even if she wanted to marry her partner.

God intended for male and female to be married to bring children into this world. If God says it is wrong, it must be wrong. Who am I to argue with God?

It is because of God that all things are possible, so I am grateful to be here at all.

I watched a program on the Discovery Science Channel with my son a few months back about the "big bang theory" and in the end, they summized that it took a "creator" to have made this universe the exact way it is to sustain life on any planet.

[strangejen]

God intended for male and female to be married to bring children into this world. If God says it is wrong, it must be wrong. Who am I to argue with God?


Sorry, I can't help but be devil's advocate here . . . so a woman who knows she is infertile shouldn't get married? What about people who are senior citizens and widowed, then find someone they love and want to be with? Should THEY not get married, because children won't be involved?

:D

[hazelsmrf]

Regarding same-sex marriage, I do not agree with it. Even though my only sister is gay and in a monogamous relationship, I do believe that it is wrong. So, even though I love my sister and I am happy that she is happy, I do not believe they should be married. It serves no purpose, IMO. Funny thing is... she agrees with me on this issue. And I more than tolerate her, I love her and want the best for her - even if she wanted to marry her partner.

God intended for male and female to be married to bring children into this world. If God says it is wrong, it must be wrong. Who am I to argue with God?

I have never understood this reasoning. I could understand someone saying that they didn't support gay marriage because it says so in the bible. But procreation, that is another issue. Do you then also not support hetero marriages where the couple do not want children? Isn't that also "serving no purpose". What if you want to adopt, it is already legal for gay people to adopt.

[rainbowkitty]

To me gay marriage is about protection of families, NOT the destruction of families. It is about letting two parents both have legal rights to the children they are raising together. It is about my belief that GOD made people gay, just like you were born straight. Yes I know this is an incredibly touchy subject, but if you are curious here is a great website.
www.godmademegay.com. While I know the name may offend some of you, just take a look. It might suprise you.
Gay marriage is also about inheritance rights, hospital visitation rights, and the right to make decisions for your partner when they are unable to do so.
I also believe that gays and lesbians can be Christians, and can get into heaven, without repenting for that particular "sin", I do not think they are mutally exclusive. I attend a Christian church that is both open and affirming, and my children have friends with two moms/two days or two same sex grandparents.
But if you disagree, that is fine. I still do not think the government has any right to tell two adults who love each other, who they can or can not marry. I anxiously await the day, and I believe I will live to see it, in which my friends can marry and raise their children as a married couple.
I suppose I am done for now.

[strangejen]

To me gay marriage is about protection of families, NOT the destruction of families.

:clap

[amandabarugh]

:eek I'm a Christian, and I'm very much so for separation of Church and State. Religion has no place in how the government is run, nor in public schools.

[amandabarugh]

This is such a touchy subject... But there is scientific evidence behind evolution, there is not behind creationism. I personally am a Christian who believes in evolution by divine intevention. That being said, I do not believe there is a place for creationism in our public school. I am struggling for the words to say all of this without offending anyone so I am going to stop while ahead( or at leatst while I think I am ahead!)

ITA!:agree

[4noisyboys]

:eek I'm a Christian, and I'm very much so for separation of Church and State. Religion has no place in how the government is run, nor in public schools.

Ditto here. I have either homeschooled or sent my kids to private schools, but even there, you have teachers that teach things that you might not personally believe. Thankfully, my boys are all smart enough to be discerning. They tell me what some of the teachers have said, and it makes for some really good discussions at home.

As for gay marriage....the part that I have a problem with is the word "marriage". I am all for civil unions, but marriage is a word that has religious roots and should be between ONE man and ONE woman. I think that gay couples should have whatever rights that married couples have though, and that includes insurance, hospital visitation, adoption, whatever....but it is just the word that bothers me. I will not say that I condone living a gay lifestyle though....but it doesn't stop me from loving them. Many of my dearest friends from my childhood are gay, and several family members too.

[amandabarugh]

Isn't it sad that our society allows marriage between a man and woman who are not completely committed to staying together through good and bad, are who do not take marriage seriously? But we do not allow two human beings who love each other no matter what gender they are, who intend to stay together for the rest of their lives because some people do not agree with their lifestyle. Isn't marriage about the commitment to be someone you love for the rest of their lives? I don't understand why were are still fighting for equal rights in this day and age. After gay couples got married in San Francisco, none of it affected my life or anyone else's I know. It was business as usual for the rest of us.

I can't help it but this reminds me of interracial couples having to fight for their right to get married. The Loving vs Virginia case (http://www.freedomtomarry.org/pdfs/mildred_loving-statement.pdf)sounds all too familiar here. I know this isn't about races, but the same issues are coming up again - basic civil rights.

Bravo! I have always said that everyone needs to go back and reread Lovings vs Virginia when gay marriage comes up! It definitely applies! I've been saying that for years, and I've never come across anyone who agrees!

[movefearlessly]

i think (even tho the thread is staying VERY polite - well-done!) that a few people have in fact misinterpreted a little of what you've said. tolerance is exactly your attitude. it isn't necessary to tolerate ideas we agree with; i commend you for having the courage of your convictions and the ability to practice what you preach. i don't agree with some of what you've said, but i do appreciate the way you've said it!
Clearly we disagree about the meaning of tolerance. Just because I disagree with something doesn't mean I can't tolerate those who practice it or those who disagree with me. I recognize that there is a huge difference in one's behavior and one's value as a person. Tolerance and acceptance are two different things. I will tolerate homosexuality in our society. What I don't want to do is have the government sactioning something I and a great number of people, feel is immoral.

You know what, I have a brother who is gay. He is one of the most kind-hearted, trusting and sweetest people I know. I don't agree with his lifestyle, but I love my brother and I see beyond what I don't agree with and see his value as a human being. In some ways we are worlds apart, but this man is my brother. A few years back, he lost his partner to liver disease complicated by hepatitis. Was I there for him? Did I hold his hand and hold him and love on him and appreciate his grief? You bet I did. I tolerate his lifestyle because I love him as a person and a brother.

As for your comments about divorce, I can't argue with that. Marriage in our society has already lost so much of it's meaning and value and that's sad too.

[Gina.Maria]

As for gay marriage....the part that I have a problem with is the word "marriage". I am all for civil unions, but marriage is a word that has religious roots and should be between ONE man and ONE woman. I think that gay couples should have whatever rights that married couples have though, and that includes insurance, hospital visitation, adoption, whatever....but it is just the word that bothers me. I will not say that I condone living a gay lifestyle though....but it doesn't stop me from loving them. Many of my dearest friends from my childhood are gay, and several family members too.

If we're going to "go there" then why don't we offer the option of "civil union" to hetero couples, as well? I mean, really, if marriage is religious and biblical and intended for the purpose of procreation, maybe we should have civil unions for anyone who doesn't intend to raise children, isn't religious and couldn't care less about biblical law.

I'm sorry, but this argument is ridiculous in this day and age. We gave women the vote, finally agreed that Blacks are human too and now? Now we're fighting about whether to grant intelligent adults the legal right to choose a mate for life. Every time we've discriminated, it's been utterly ridiculous and ignorant. It's no different this time around.

Gay marriage/union will not hurt anyone. What stake do you have in whether your gay neighbor's partner can direct his wishes at his mate's deathbed? Why does it make sense that a gay couple's children become legal orphans when the adoptive or birth parent dies?

I'm tired of this fight but I'll keep standing up for it because it's right to do so.

[4noisyboys]

If we're going to "go there" then why don't we offer the option of "civil union" to hetero couples, as well? I mean, really, if marriage is religious and biblical and intended for the purpose of procreation, maybe we should have civil unions for anyone who doesn't intend to raise children, isn't religious and couldn't care less about biblical law.

I'm sorry, but this argument is ridiculous in this day and age. We gave women the vote, finally agreed that Blacks are human too and now? Now we're fighting about whether to grant intelligent adults the legal right to choose a mate for life. Every time we've discriminated, it's been utterly ridiculous and ignorant. It's no different this time around.

Gay marriage/union will not hurt anyone. What stake do you have in whether your gay neighbor's partner can direct his wishes at his mate's deathbed? Why does it make sense that a gay couple's children become legal orphans when the adoptive or birth parent dies?

I'm tired of this fight but I'll keep standing up for it because it's right to do so.

I honestly don't feel that marriage is for procreation. I think that was someonelse's argument. Actually, if a gay couple wants to get married (and they can now in Calif.), I have no problems with it. I just said the word bothers me.

Hugs to you sweetie!! We're on the same side most of the time!!

[ESNQueen]

I totally try to stay out of these kind of threads but I'm feeling reckless today. ;)

I am sick of our schools being used as experiments for various social activist agendas - they should focus on teaching core education fundamentals and leave all that other stuff to parents.

That's part of why we homeschooled for a bit. My daughter is doing alright in public school for right now, though. She's only in kindergarten, but she understand the difference between school and church. She told me that she can't talk about God at school because they don't like God there.

This is exactly what the public schools do with evolutionary teaching. Evolution is simply one theory, not fact, and much of the so-called " science" of evolution has been scientifically refuted, but evolutionists don't want to believe it. It is, in fact, a belief system. I think all theories should be taught, if ANY are taught. Read more about it at http://www.answersingenesis.org/

If anyone thinks our kids are not being taught a religion in public school, think again. Secular humanism is in fact a belief system. Separation of church and state is just being used as a mechanism that atheists, socialists and agnostics use as an weapon to promote their own religion/belief system and fight any public expression of Christianity and it is clearly not being used in the spirit with which it was first created. :)

Dianne, I think I love you, and totally NOT in a gay-marriage kind of way. :)


- I believe that everyone in the country that desires to succeed and make bundles of money should be able to work very hard, take significant risk and make very smart decisions and become obscenely wealthy without being unfairly penalized by our tax system.

I wish it worked that way (with getting obscenely rich by working hard). My husband used to work as a messenger on an armored truck. He had to wear a bullet-proof vest even on 100 degree days, lifting 50-70 pound bags of coins all day long, and carry a loaded gun at all times. He worked his ass off, always with the possibility of injury or violence, for less than $15/hour. But Paris Hilton, she works hard for her money, yeah...

I also agree with what LaWanna said about abortion. I believe it is murder. My opinion was different before I went through infertility issues.

I believe in studying the Bible in literary classes alongwith other religious texts. Not doing so makes students miss out on major literary allusions later on in life if they weren't exposed to the Bible at home.

I found this true, especially in college literature classes (at a public university). I was raised by atheist parents. I knew so little about the bible it was laughable. I had NO CLUE what a lot of the early-American literature I was reading alluded to because I had no idea what the biblical basis for the writing was.

[mama_pajama]

She told me that she can't talk about God at school because they don't like God there.

I am baffled by this statement. Who said she can't talk about God at school? Kids can talk about God at school, and teachers can too, as long as the kids bring it up and it's not a planned lesson. There were times in my teaching career when kids would bring up the subject of God or religion, and I responded as honestly as I could without being preachy.

When my daughter was in Kindergarten she made some 'Jesus sandals' in Sunday School out of yarn and cardboard. She took them to school for show-and-tell the next day. Her teacher came up to me in the teachers' lounge and THANKED me for letting Kyra bring in the sandals. She said that she loves when the kids bring up Jesus, because then she gets the opening she needs. She said that when Kyra showed her sandals to the class, she asked Kyra, "So, is that like you're walking in Jesus' footsteps?" and Kyra said yes.

God isn't a bad word in public schools, and any administrators who act like the kids aren't allowed to mention Him are ignorant of the facts. The kids CAN talk about God, and the teachers can respond to them, as long as every child in the class has the same right to talk openly about their family's beliefs.

[AndreaBurns]

As for creationism, I would be all for creationism being taught in schools as long as all other possible myths and theories of creation are taught as well. I do not think it should be taught as part of a science class, perhaps a second class specifically for this topic though since there are so many different theories and myths behind it. To only teach the Christian idea would infringe upon the rights of children from other religions in my opinion and children with no religion.

I personally would be appalled if my son's school started teaching him creationism without explaining that it is only one theory or idea. If we want him to be taught Christian beliefs and ideas without learning other beliefs and ideas at the same time we would have him in a religious school. Otherwise I believe the values and ideas of one religion have no place in public schools without all other religions being considered and incorporated. I even struggle with the pledge since it says "one nation, under god" and not everyone of the families at these schools believe in god.

Evolution does have a scientific basis though so I think it should stay in science class. When I was in high school and we were taught about evolution we were very specifically told that it is only one theory and then a quick brush up of some other theories followed.

I also do not think that creationism should be taught in schools before high school or middle school when it can be chosen as a class by the student with permission from the parents. Personally, we plan on teaching Dom about all of the different religions even though we do not practice any of them. If he wishes to practice a religion some day we will be completely supportive of that.


Actually there is no scientific basis for Evolution "ie. the ADDING of information." Never has Science truly documented that animals gained info to change. Loss of information, YES, gaining of info, no.

This is exactly what the public schools do with evolutionary teaching. Evolution is simply one theory, not fact, and much of the so-called " science" of evolution has been scientifically refuted, but evolutionists don't want to believe it. It is, in fact, a belief system. I think all theories should be taught, if ANY are taught. Read more about it at http://www.answersingenesis.org/

If anyone thinks our kids are not being taught a religion in public school, think again. Secular humanism is in fact a belief system. Separation of church and state is just being used as a mechanism that atheists, socialists and agnostics use as an weapon to promote their own religion/belief system and fight any public expression of Christianity and it is clearly not being used in the spirit with which it was first created. :)

DITTO.

This is such a touchy subject... But there is scientific evidence behind evolution, there is not behind creationism. I personally am a Christian who believes in evolution by divine intevention. That being said, I do not believe there is a place for creationism in our public school. I am struggling for the words to say all of this without offending anyone so I am going to stop while ahead( or at leatst while I think I am ahead!)

Check out http://www.answersingenesis.org/ He has LOTS of scientific proof for Creationism.

[snappy2003]

Faith, your name fits you perfectly! I completely agree with you. :)

I am appalled that the public schools only seem to teach evolution. When I was in 7th grade- my teacher refused to teach anything about the "theory" called creationism (the only truth in my opinion- no offense to you) And I was very upset that this was the way things were run. It is so unfortunate that I would have to send my child to a Christian school to hear the truth- and I can't afford $5,000 a year. I would love them to teach it as a possiblilty at least, since I understand not everyone shares my beliefs or the ones I want to pass on to my children. I don't want my child hearing what I know is false and them spoon feeding it to my child as truth.

Even when they teach evolution it they say it is a theory so why even teach it if you aren't going to share all spectrums. :shrug

I also have to say that I 100% agree with Dianne's statements

[jorgies5]

Gay marriage/union will not hurt anyone.

I have seen this argument several times in this thread, but as I already mentioned in my previous post (page 2), IMO I see evidence of people getting hurt in the case of Catholics Charities in Boston having to be shut down because they weren't willing to go against their religious beliefs. If private religious organizations are going to be forced to go against something they believe in, to me this is infringing on religious freedom.

[LindsaysMom]

In the U.S. there is supposed to be a separation of church and state but it seems to me that some of the big issues, or at least the issues that have been mentioned cross the line of this separation. What do you think about this?


I am sorry, I have not read many of the above posts so I will just jump in and answer this question.

I grew up in Germany, a country who's government is similar to the US government with separation of church and state. When I first moved to the states, I noticed a HUGE difference though. In my opinion and having experienced another similar government, the separation of church and state in the US is rather fuzzy. There are all sorts of politically correct attempts to separate but in my opinion those attempts are made at all the wrong issues. I am not a religious person and I don't feel affiliated to any religion or church. In Germany this was pretty much normal and nobody took issue with it. Here, in the States, I am looked at like I was sick or confused. Really wired!

[hazelsmrf]

I have seen this argument several times in this thread, but as I already mentioned in my previous post (page 2), IMO I see evidence of people getting hurt in the case of Catholics Charities in Boston having to be shut down because they weren't willing to go against their religious beliefs. If private religious organizations are going to be forced to go against something they believe in, to me this is infringing on religious freedom.

Would it be okay of them to say that they will only allow white people to adopt, I don't get it.. discrimination is discrimination... I think if they're doing a public service (like adoption) then yes they have to obey the laws like anyone else. That has nothing to do with gay civil unions though.

[jorgies5]

Would it be okay of them to say that they will only allow white people to adopt, I don't get it.. discrimination is discrimination... I think if they're doing a public service (like adoption) then yes they have to obey the laws like anyone else. That has nothing to do with gay civil unions though.

In my mind, that comparison is not the same. People do not choose their race. But with my religious beliefs, I believe homosexual feelings are controllable (Yes, I know this not a popular stance). This statement pretty much sums up what I believe:

"Perhaps there is an inclination or susceptibility to such feelings that is a reality for some and not a reality for others. But out of such susceptibilities come feelings, and feelings are controllable. If we cater to the feelings, they increase the power of the temptation. If we yield to the temptation, we have committed sinful behavior. That pattern is the same for a person that covets someone else’s property and has a strong temptation to steal. It’s the same for a person that develops a taste for alcohol. It’s the same for a person that is born with a ‘short fuse,’ as we would say of a susceptibility to anger. If they let that susceptibility remain uncontrolled, it becomes a feeling of anger, and a feeling of anger can yield to behavior that is sinful and illegal.

We’re not talking about a unique challenge here. We’re talking about a common condition of mortality. We don’t understand exactly the ‘why,’ or the extent to which there are inclinations or susceptibilities and so on. But what we do know is that feelings can be controlled and behavior can be controlled. The line of sin is between the feelings and the behavior. The line of prudence is between the susceptibility and the feelings. We need to lay hold on the feelings and try to control them to keep us from getting into a circumstance that leads to sinful behavior. "

I really didn't want to get into this debate, because when people have different core beliefs it is impossible to see it eye to eye and is really pointless to talk about.

[shoebootie]

Thank you for this link. I didn't know there was a Creation Museum and we'll be definitely planning a trip to see this.

This is exactly what the public schools do with evolutionary teaching. Evolution is simply one theory, not fact, and much of the so-called " science" of evolution has been scientifically refuted, but evolutionists don't want to believe it. It is, in fact, a belief system. I think all theories should be taught, if ANY are taught. Read more about it at http://www.answersingenesis.org/

[Hollie]

This is such a touchy subject... But there is scientific evidence behind evolution, there is not behind creationism. I personally am a Christian who believes in evolution by divine intevention. That being said, I do not believe there is a place for creationism in our public school. I am struggling for the words to say all of this without offending anyone so I am going to stop while ahead( or at leatst while I think I am ahead!)

You know, I'm not interested in getting into the debate here, but I would like to mention that there is actually a very large body of scientific evidence for creation(or scientific argument, since those in both camps--creation and evolution--cannot offer 100% solid proof for their theories). I've attended quite a few lectures on the subject and read a few books. You can even just google the topic and find plenty of heavy reading. But as I said, it is an open ended subject. Many of the more commonly known arguments on either side have a refutation by the opposing side. Often there are even refutations of the refutations. It can get a little mind-numbing! It is up to you to read all that you can, learn all that you can--about both--and choose what you are going to believe. But to say there is no evidence--that really isn't the case:)

[movefearlessly]

and in all honesty, this is why separation of church and state is crucial. i'm not convinced one way or another about homosexuality. and on the topic of sin. . . isn't that why God gave His only begotten Son? i'm a parent, and if one of my children happens to be gay, i love that child anyway. how can God not feel the same about His children?

so if you discard the religious arguments, you're left with the legal ones. and like it or not, there are compelling legal arguments for legalizing civil unions for homosexuals.

at the end of the day, how do you go wrong with tolerance?

In my mind, that comparison is not the same. People do not choose their race. But with my religious beliefs, I believe homosexual feelings are controllable (Yes, I know this not a popular stance). This statement pretty much sums up what I believe:

"Perhaps there is an inclination or susceptibility to such feelings that is a reality for some and not a reality for others. But out of such susceptibilities come feelings, and feelings are controllable. If we cater to the feelings, they increase the power of the temptation. If we yield to the temptation, we have committed sinful behavior. That pattern is the same for a person that covets someone else’s property and has a strong temptation to steal. It’s the same for a person that develops a taste for alcohol. It’s the same for a person that is born with a ‘short fuse,’ as we would say of a susceptibility to anger. If they let that susceptibility remain uncontrolled, it becomes a feeling of anger, and a feeling of anger can yield to behavior that is sinful and illegal.

We’re not talking about a unique challenge here. We’re talking about a common condition of mortality. We don’t understand exactly the ‘why,’ or the extent to which there are inclinations or susceptibilities and so on. But what we do know is that feelings can be controlled and behavior can be controlled. The line of sin is between the feelings and the behavior. The line of prudence is between the susceptibility and the feelings. We need to lay hold on the feelings and try to control them to keep us from getting into a circumstance that leads to sinful behavior. "

I really didn't want to get into this debate, because when people have different core beliefs it is impossible to see it eye to eye and is really pointless to talk about.

[shoebootie]

I guess that's one of the reasons why we pay to send our daughter to a Christian school. I think taking prayer our of school was one of our bigger mistakes as a society.

This is just my opinion, but I find it odd that so many people work so hard at removing any traces of God from the public forum when they say He doesn't exist. What's the problem? Does it really pick your pocket to have someone put their hand on a Bible when they are sworn to tell the truth in a court of law? Is the reference to Christ in Christmas so offensive that it has to be called a 'Winter Holiday' now and a 'Holiday Tree'? Seriously, if people don't believe in the birth of Jesus Christ, they shouldn't be celebrating Christmas at all, but they do. It all just baffles me that it's pick and choose.

[FrenchRuby]

Jenny, do you choose to be heterosexual? Do you have lesbian feelings that you choose not to act upon?

or are you just heterosexual full stop? If so, why is it so hard to accept that some people are homosexual full stop and there is no choice involved?

I'm afraid that I believe that sex and the physical urge/need/desire to have sex is a natural part of being an adult human being. Hence I think that to postulate that is desirable, healthy or even possible for any adult human being to permanently deny that natural aspect of themselves (whether they are gay, straight or somewhere in between), an aspect of themselves which those who believe in God's creation must accept God put there, is irrational at best.

No offence intended to anyone.

[movefearlessly]

the thing i find odd is that while i'm a Christian and really do treasure my faith, i don't hold it against anyone if they aren't. most Christians i know feel basically the same. but a lot of people who do not believe can't wait to ridicule me and others like me. i don't understand that attitude. i'll never force my beliefs on another person, but i'm always happy to share them; and some people really get twisted about that.

i've learned things by listening to people who have very different beliefs than i do. i think anything is possible. and i'm probably an idiot for this one - but i think we all have it in us to be outstanding, to make a difference, to be a hero. so i hate to see a belief-set ever close the door on that.

[Microferk ~ Miki Ferkul]

I guess that's one of the reasons why we pay to send our daughter to a Christian school. I think taking prayer our of school was one of our bigger mistakes as a society.

This is just my opinion, but I find it odd that so many people work so hard at removing any traces of God from the public forum when they say He doesn't exist. What's the problem? Does it really pick your pocket to have someone put their hand on a Bible when they are sworn to tell the truth in a court of law? Is the reference to Christ in Christmas so offensive that it has to be called a 'Winter Holiday' now and a 'Holiday Tree'? Seriously, if people don't believe in the birth of Jesus Christ, they shouldn't be celebrating Christmas at all, but they do. It all just baffles me that it's pick and choose.

But, to be fair, most Christmas symbols, including the evergreen tree and its branches, the Yule log, holly, ivy, poinsettias and mistletoe, wreathes made of the aforementioned materials, candles, bells, the 5 pointed star, are pagan symbols in origin. And being that Christmas was placed around the same time by the Christians many centuries later, as the earlier Yule/Winter Solstice that occurs around December 21-22, celebrated by those religions, I'm betting you'll get some cross-over with the pagans :lol

[Microferk ~ Miki Ferkul]

Jenny, do you choose to be heterosexual? Do you have lesbian feelings that you choose not to act upon?

or are you just heterosexual full stop? If so, why is it so hard to accept that some people are homosexual full stop and there is no choice involved?

I'm afraid that I believe that sex and the physical urge/need/desire to have sex is a natural part of being an adult human being. Hence I think that to postulate that is desirable, healthy or even possible for any adult human being to permanently deny that natural aspect of themselves (whether they are gay, straight or somewhere in between), an aspect of themselves which those who believe in God's creation must accept God put there, is irrational at best.

No offence intended to anyone.

Yes. And if one of my children are gay, I hope they find as much love in life with their partner as I have in mine with my husband.

[Scorpiosue1102]

If we are going to put prayer back in school then we should put parts of the Torah in school along with the Koran. It is not up to me and what I believe to tell you what your child should be praying about. Your religious truth may not be mine.

Gay marriage and tolerance towards gay's and lesbian's is a big issue for me. My uncle is a gay man and is in a loving, monogamous relationship to a wonderful man. In fact, their relationship is better than most relationships that I have seen. My uncle has never been happier. When my uncle is in his last days on this earth his partner SHOULD be able to be there in the room with him. He should also receive benefits. And if they want to get married, I'll get them something off their registry. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...that's what it's all about.

[AndreaBurns]

It is about my belief that GOD made people gay, just like you were born straight. Yes I know this is an incredibly touchy subject, but if you are curious here is a great website.
www.godmademegay.com (http://www.godmademegay.com). While I know the name may offend some of you, just take a look. It might suprise you.
Gay marriage is also about inheritance rights, hospital visitation rights, and the right to make decisions for your partner when they are unable to do so.
I also believe that gays and lesbians can be Christians, and can get into heaven, without repenting for that particular "sin", I do not think they are mutally exclusive.

It says specifically in God's Word that He abhors "Unnatural Relationships." So I would rethink your theology and the theology of your church if they don't take the Bible at 100%. You can't pick and choose what you want to believe out of it.

Please see Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13

[greenpalm]

Well, I have read every single response here, and generally found something I agreed with in every single post. I certainly respect all the opinions expressed here, and I really admire everyone for debating this with cool heads. I whole heartedly respect every religion whose doctrines do not involve infringing on the rights of others. (As my husband likes to say, "my right to swing my fist ends at the point of your nose.") That said, I probably have the most radical solution to all of this:

American public schools are unconstitutional. They should be abolished entirely.

It is not the government's job to educate our children. In fact, it is decidedly a conflict of interest, precisely out of respect for both sides of each and every argument made here.

The same thing goes for marriage. "Marriage" should be a religious arrangement. It should be something that happens in a religious ceremony, and should be between the couple and god. If two or more adult individuals wish to sign a legal contract agreeing to particular sanctions, like health benefits, insurance, survivors rights, then they can, they have the right to do that now. If you want to call it something other than Marriage, that works for me. I'd have been perfectly happy to call my arrangement with my husband by another name.

We teach our children at home for political reasons. We don't want the government's curriculum, ideologies, or any other values imposed on them. Regardless of what they are. I always hesitate to get involved in threads like this one because I feel ill prepared to make my case very well. I am a Libertarian, and basically that means I believe the government needs to stay out of absolutely everything that isn't specifically outlined in the constitution. I keep a miniature copy in my pocket. Currently, the government has it's finger in many many pies that it should be staying out of. School is definitely one of those pies. How could we ever agree on what values our children should be taught? Why should we need to?

[hazelsmrf]

It says specifically in God's Word that He abhors "Unnatural Relationships." So I would rethink your theology and the theology of your church if they don't take the Bible at 100%. You can't pick and choose what you want to believe out of it.

Please see Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13

I guess that's why there are SO many denominations/religions out there, not everyone interprets the bible the same way, and honestly everyone believes THEIR way is the right way, which is why nobody will ever see eye to eye on such a subject.

[movefearlessly]

:clap:clap:clap

i think you stated your case quite well!!

Well, I have read every single response here, and generally found something I agreed with in every single post. I certainly respect all the opinions expressed here, and I really admire everyone for debating this with cool heads. I whole heartedly respect every religion whose doctrines do not involve infringing on the rights of others. (As my husband likes to say, "my right to swing my fist ends at the point of your nose.") That said, I probably have the most radical solution to all of this:

American public schools are unconstitutional. They should be abolished entirely.

It is not the government's job to educate our children. In fact, it is decidedly a conflict of interest, precisely out of respect for both sides of each and every argument made here.

The same thing goes for marriage. "Marriage" should be a religious arrangement. It should be something that happens in a religious ceremony, and should be between the couple and god. If two or more adult individuals wish to sign a legal contract agreeing to particular sanctions, like health benefits, insurance, survivors rights, then they can, they have the right to do that now. If you want to call it something other than Marriage, that works for me. I'd have been perfectly happy to call my arrangement with my husband by another name.

We teach our children at home for political reasons. We don't want the government's curriculum, ideologies, or any other values imposed on them. Regardless of what they are. I always hesitate to get involved in threads like this one because I feel ill prepared to make my case very well. I am a Libertarian, and basically that means I believe the government needs to stay out of absolutely everything that isn't specifically outlined in the constitution. I keep a miniature copy in my pocket. Currently, the government has it's finger in many many pies that it should be staying out of. School is definitely one of those pies. How could we ever agree on what values our children should be taught? Why should we need to?

[mama_pajama]

American public schools are unconstitutional. They should be abolished entirely.


Yikes! I don't think I've ever disagreed with anything more.

[newfiemountiewife]

I feel that public schools should stick to academics and leave the religious teaching to the parents/family. I do not want some teacher I barely know, preaching her beliefs to my children.

[Microferk ~ Miki Ferkul]

I feel that public schools should stick to academics and leave the religious teaching to the parents/family. I do not want some teacher I barely know, preaching her beliefs to my children.

I think that's the ONLY sensible approach to this peaceably.

[rainbowkitty]

It says specifically in God's Word that He abhors "Unnatural Relationships." So I would rethink your theology and the theology of your church if they don't take the Bible at 100%. You can't pick and choose what you want to believe out of it.

Please see Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13

Ive read the bible, and here is where you and I greatly differ. I see nothing unnatural about homosexual relationships. As I clearly stated I believe that GOD created homosexuals. That it isnt a choice but is just who you are. So thus what you quoted does not apply to them.
Also as an educated an intelligent woman I am able to see that the bible was written two hundred years after the death of Christ, and was not as so many people believe written BY the apostles or even anyone alive during that time. (The new testament). I do believe the bible is inspired by God, but I do not believe it is perfect. I am not a pick and choose Christian, only an educated one.
Oh and I also remember that Jesus told us to Love one another and not to judge. That is what is missing amongst so many of those people who don't want to give gays and lesbians equal rights under the law. Whether you agree or like what they are doing is mostly irrelevant, its not your place to judge. But they are human beings and deserve the same rights that you and I have.

[rainbowkitty]

Oh and I wanted to point out to that stating that a biblical "marriage" between ONE man and ONE woman is a joke. Reread your bibles please. Because polygamy was not only condoned but many of the bibles greatest heroes practiced it. People forget this all the time when they talk about the biblical sanctity of marriage.

[rainbowkitty]

I have to say this to, GO Gina, you summed up my feelings in so many words. Thank you so much. I agree whole heartedly with everything you said. Gay marriage hurts NO one and protects many. If you don't believe me get online and do some research, there is tons of it out there.

[jorgies5]

Jenny, do you choose to be heterosexual? Do you have lesbian feelings that you choose not to act upon?

or are you just heterosexual full stop? If so, why is it so hard to accept that some people are homosexual full stop and there is no choice involved?

I'm afraid that I believe that sex and the physical urge/need/desire to have sex is a natural part of being an adult human being. Hence I think that to postulate that is desirable, healthy or even possible for any adult human being to permanently deny that natural aspect of themselves (whether they are gay, straight or somewhere in between), an aspect of themselves which those who believe in God's creation must accept God put there, is irrational at best.

No offence intended to anyone.

I was not going to post about this anymore, but since I was asked a question, I will answer it and then be done. Ruby, you should find all your answers directed towards me and my beliefs here (http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/the-divine-institution-of-marriage). It covers pretty much everything and then some (warning: it is very long).

[cheribear]

Canadian here. :)

1) God in schools - we have a Catholic separate school system at least in the province I grew up in, I don't know about the rest of the country. So you can send your kids to a Catholic school, and your tax dollars go towards that system so its funded that way - not private school with tuition. Aside from that, public schools do what works within the school as far as I know. For example, my kids attend a regular (non-Catholic) public school, but still say a prayer in the morning and even trek over to the Church across the street for Mass now and then, and are taught Catechism in school. This happens because we are a largely French-Catholic community and it works for the people here. Anyone can opt out of it if they wish. It would probably not fly anywhere else and if enough people are bothered by it, things will very likely change.

2) Same-sex marriage - Canadian same-sex couples can have the same rights in the eyes of the government as hetero couples with the Civil Marriage Act. For my purposes, I'd like to see ALL couples in Canada who want to be 'married' in the eyes of the government apply for a license from the gov't like they do now - but just quit calling it marriage. I do think (being Catholic and all) that marriage (to me) is between two people AND God, and the gov't just recognizes it which is a whole different thing. So I'd like to see the gov't recognize unions of all people of any stripe/type whatever - and they decide for themselves and their faith/belief system to call it marriage or whatever. I just don't think the gov't should be in charge of saying who is 'married' and not but they should recognize unions based on their own requirements - which should have nothing to do with religion or gender. So while I think church and state should be separate on that part, right now - its called the Marriage Act, and that's how it will probably stay.

3) Evloution/Creationism/whatever - I was taught evolution in schools, and like ALL scientific stuff (to use the scientific word :lol: ) - everything is just a theory, because it IS science and tomorrow they could discover something to contradict it. There are a few laws in science - and to my knowledge evolution has not become a law yet. There is a lot more 'science' to talk about with evolution, and I fully expect that theory to be explored in school. I expect other theories to be mentioned and discussed as possible theories, with respect to their supporting scientific facts, and not religious stuff - because its a science class, not a religion class. Just like I expect that a history class or social studies class will refer to different religions and their beliefs without expecting the students to subscribe to them or feel that one is the 'true' system and the rest are false. Discuss how these things affect culture, history, society, art, literature etc. as they apply to the subject being taught. Don't say this is right and that is wrong. Easy-peasy.

4) Abortion - While I personally am pro-life, and I believe a life is a life etc. - I see understand others believe otherwise. I think the pro-life groups lobbying to change the abortion laws should shift their focus to something that more people can get behind - I don't think the laws will change, and though it saddens me, I also don't think they SHOULD change. What we need to focus on is changing people's MINDS. That should be something that a larger number of people can get behind - everyone makes the choice for themselves and their own bodies - and if you succeed in changing minds so that nobody would personally choose an abortion for themselves, then changing the law won't matter much, will it? So the choose life people win, and the pro-choice people win too.

[Hollie]

Also as an educated an intelligent woman I am able to see that the bible was written two hundred years after the death of Christ, and was not as so many people believe written BY the apostles or even anyone alive during that time. (The new testament). I do believe the bible is inspired by God, but I do not believe it is perfect. I am not a pick and choose Christian, only an educated one.
Oh and I also remember that Jesus told us to Love one another and not to judge. That is what is missing amongst so many of those people who don't want to give gays and lesbians equal rights under the law. Whether you agree or like what they are doing is mostly irrelevant, its not your place to judge. But they are human beings and deserve the same rights that you and I have.
[/B]

I am just curious to know where you have gotten your documentation. As far as I've studied, it is a very widely held belief that a large portion of the NT was written by the Apostle Paul. Many of the letters even have him stating he is the writer within the body the letter itself. I'm really interested to know your sources of information, since I enjoy the study of the Bible and like to be aware of all sources. I try to make sure that I look at a wide variety of commentaries and study aides, so that I'm not missing anything. Thanks:)

[movefearlessly]

i know everyone here is very passionate about this subject. again, i would say that is precisely the reason that separation of church and state is so important. the law and our government exist to protect us and our rights - all of our rights - and perhaps most important of such rights is the one that allows us to have this conversation at all. you cannot legislate morality. societies which try only ever fail. i don't want the government telling me what i can believe, how i can feel, what i can say. that isn't the place of government.

protecting the rights of my heirs is something that can and should be legislated and because i'm a hetero female, protected by "marriage" - they are. even if you don't like what they do, is it fair to deny them the same legal protections you enjoy, based on what is essentially legal status?

the argument that it will destroy civilization is bogus. if you believe in God, you don't live in fear of the end of the world. at least, i don't.

[4noisyboys]

Oh and I wanted to point out to that stating that a biblical "marriage" between ONE man and ONE woman is a joke. Reread your bibles please. Because polygamy was not only condoned but many of the bibles greatest heroes practiced it. People forget this all the time when they talk about the biblical sanctity of marriage.

I can find no where in the Bible where polygamy was condoned. It happened...it was practiced, but I do not find anything that actually teaches it or says that is ok. If you find it to be otherwise, please send me the scriptures. I always keep an open mind, and if I'm wrong...I'm wrong.

[Gina.Maria]

Well, I have read every single response here, and generally found something I agreed with in every single post. I certainly respect all the opinions expressed here, and I really admire everyone for debating this with cool heads. I whole heartedly respect every religion whose doctrines do not involve infringing on the rights of others. (As my husband likes to say, "my right to swing my fist ends at the point of your nose.") That said, I probably have the most radical solution to all of this:

American public schools are unconstitutional. They should be abolished entirely.

It is not the government's job to educate our children. In fact, it is decidedly a conflict of interest, precisely out of respect for both sides of each and every argument made here.

The same thing goes for marriage. "Marriage" should be a religious arrangement. It should be something that happens in a religious ceremony, and should be between the couple and god. If two or more adult individuals wish to sign a legal contract agreeing to particular sanctions, like health benefits, insurance, survivors rights, then they can, they have the right to do that now. If you want to call it something other than Marriage, that works for me. I'd have been perfectly happy to call my arrangement with my husband by another name.

We teach our children at home for political reasons. We don't want the government's curriculum, ideologies, or any other values imposed on them. Regardless of what they are. I always hesitate to get involved in threads like this one because I feel ill prepared to make my case very well. I am a Libertarian, and basically that means I believe the government needs to stay out of absolutely everything that isn't specifically outlined in the constitution. I keep a miniature copy in my pocket. Currently, the government has it's finger in many many pies that it should be staying out of. School is definitely one of those pies. How could we ever agree on what values our children should be taught? Why should we need to?

Well, while I agree with you in theory, it's the policy of industrialized nations to educate their citizens so those citizens don't become a burden on society.

I'm not confident that our country could have produced the technological advances we have if we had abolished public education because of its constitutionality. While religion and government have muddled about in our schools far too much, I remember getting a very good public education with a strong emphasis on logic and independent thinking.

If we fail to educate our children (by "our" I mean all children, not just the ones we are personally responsible for) we'll end up with a country full of the uneducated ruled by the elite who can afford expensive educations. Do we really want another Mexico?

As for marriage, how about we separate the religious and legal aspects of the partnership? A civil union will grant you the benefits that a government can grant (i.e. tax breaks, right of inheritance, etc.) and marriage will make it right with the Lord. (This suggestion is slightly "toungue-in-cheek" so don't get your knickers in a twist over it. ;) )

[Gina.Maria]

Yep. Polygamy was pretty much the rule in the Old Testament. Even Abraham took a wife other than Sarah. Also, in Leviticus, it tells a man not to marry the sister of his wife while still married to his wife because it will cause jealousy. Clearly an okay to marry other women, just not your wife's sister. (Lev. 18:18) Others who had God's favor yet practiced polygamy include Jacob, David, and Solomon. Not saying it's right by any means - just saying it's pretty prevalent in the Bible.

[Stacey Crossley]

All the pointing to the Old Testament and picking out things that were customary and may or may not have been accepted, things that may or may not be relevant to today's life, makes me so very glad for one thing:

There is a second part--The New Testament. It's the covenant that tells me that no matter what I have done, because I accept and believe in Jesus, that radically weird guy who went running around washing feet and putting his hands on the untouchable, taught by loving example, I'm going to spend the rest of my days hanging out with Him and with my loved ones. I very much hope to run into you there, too.

That's all that matters to me--because you all matter to me. You're all my sisters here, even if you don't want to be. I sincerely love you all, even if you may not want me to. All because of the Great Commission...go out and love. It was the best gift I've ever gotten, that sacrifice so long ago.

I write this knowing it could be looked upon as 'weird' and this is really the last place I want to be viewed as weird, to be honest. But I felt led to do so, and I learned long ago that turning the corner when I'm led to go forward only gets me into trouble. :)

[AndreaBurns]

It says specifically in God's Word that He abhors "Unnatural Relationships." So I would rethink your theology and the theology of your church if they don't take the Bible at 100%. You can't pick and choose what you want to believe out of it.

Please see Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13
Ive read the bible, and here is where you and I greatly differ. I see nothing unnatural about homosexual relationships. As I clearly stated I believe that GOD created homosexuals. That it isnt a choice but is just who you are. So thus what you quoted does not apply to them.
Also as an educated an intelligent woman I am able to see that the bible was written two hundred years after the death of Christ, and was not as so many people believe written BY the apostles or even anyone alive during that time. (The new testament). I do believe the bible is inspired by God, but I do not believe it is perfect. I am not a pick and choose Christian, only an educated one.
Oh and I also remember that Jesus told us to Love one another and not to judge. That is what is missing amongst so many of those people who don't want to give gays and lesbians equal rights under the law. Whether you agree or like what they are doing is mostly irrelevant, its not your place to judge. But they are human beings and deserve the same rights that you and I have.

Leviticus 18:22 (New American Standard Bible)

22:You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

Please tell me how this is "open to translation" to mean ANYTHING else?

And according to your belief that the Bible is incorrect?

In 2 Timothy 3:16 when it says, "All scripture is given by," what, "inspiration of God." Or all scripture is inspired by God. The Latin term inspiration does not properly translate the word theopanustas, "God breathed." Really, it shouldn't be inspired, it should be expired.

All scripture is breathed out by God, not breathed in. The idea then in the scripture is that the Bible is the out breath of God. It's not God breathing into man's words. It's not God breathing into man's thoughts. It's God breathing out His words.


I'm really struggling with how you can believe some things and not others? If you can't take "God-Breathed" literally... how do you believe in the miracle of the resurrection?


Please don't get me wrong... I totally understand there are athiests and agnostics, but it blows my mind when there are Christians on the fence about important topics.




Oh and I wanted to point out to that stating that a biblical "marriage" between ONE man and ONE woman is a joke. Reread your bibles please. Because polygamy was not only condoned but many of the bibles greatest heroes practiced it. People forget this all the time when they talk about the biblical sanctity of marriage.

Um... sure in the OLD Testament... read the New Testament and what Paul talks about as "Elders of the Church" being "Men of one wife."

[Hummie]

I do believe in separation of church and state; however, I do confess that when choosing to vote, I consider the religious beliefs of the candidate. I want to hear about it. I *personally* believe that our country does not need God mad at it for the wrong choices of our leader.

[strangejen]

I'm really struggling with how you can believe some things and not others?

So you never wear clothing of mixed fixers, never eat pork or cheeseburgers, and never drive or eat out on Sundays? Because laws about those things are in the Old Testament, too, and most of us see them as moot points.

Oh wait, and don't forget that you have to hang scripture on your doorframes. :) It says so.

I'm just sayin'. (You know I love you. :) )

[strangejen]

now I personally don't eat pig products or seafood at all, which is a taste choice and not so much because of the Bible . . . but I like to think it makes me more worthy.

.

.

HA HA. I'm kidding, people. I mean, not about not eating those things, but about the worthiness. We can joke about these things, right?

[Microferk ~ Miki Ferkul]

Please don't get me wrong... I totally understand there are athiests and agnostics, but it blows my mind when there are Christians on the fence about important topics.

But that's true of lot of issues regarding Christianity, Andrea. Papal authority and infallibility, the Virgin Mary, Saints, transubstantiation of the host, birth control issues, divorce, interfaith marriages, mortal sin, salvation, confessions, Holy Communion, etc.
There are so many different flavors of Christianity, I couldn't see how it could be incorporated in the schools without even the Christians having Holy War over the particulars. :giggle

[strangejen]

transmutation of the host

*shudder* I SO can't get into believing that. yucky.

I thought it was called transub . . . something. LOL

I couldn't see how it could be incorporated in the schools without even the Christians having Holy War over the particulars.

And seriously, that's what this book is about I mentioned before!!!!

If anyone is really interested in this subject and likes to read -- and if you can find the book -- I'd suggest "The Fourth R -- Conflicts over Religion in America's Public Schools." (http://www.amazon.com/Fourth-R-Joan-DelFattore/dp/0300102178/ref=si3_rdr_bb_product) My dad recommended it to me, and it's an amazing book.

[Microferk ~ Miki Ferkul]

*shudder* I SO can't get into believing that. yucky.

I thought it was called transub . . . something. LOL

You are right Jen- I'm going to edit it above too-
It's transubstantiation

[strangejen]

and here's another amazing book, this one concerning Biblical literalism (and it's funny, too.)

The Year of Living Biblically: One Man's Humble Quest to Follow the Bible as Literally as Possible (http://www.amazon.com/Year-Living-Biblically-Literally-Possible/dp/0743291484/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221059221&sr=8-1)

Seriously, anyone who likes to talk about what the Bible REALLY says should read it. :D (It's a FUN read!!! You'll enjoy yourself!)

[strangejen]

heh. whatever it's called . . . I stand by my icky statement. :D

[strangejen]

oh, and Jesus also said that we need to sell everything we own to follow him . . . how's everyone doing on that? :D

I'm really not trying to be snarky . . . I just think there's a LOT of stuff in the Bible that can not be taken literally. And I grew up in a strict Southern Baptist home and church, so I know what's in there. I used to get kicked out of Bible drills during AWANAs because no one else could beat me. (I think that was THIER tough luck, but whatever. I sat it out after those first few rounds.)

[AndreaBurns]

So you never wear clothing of mixed fixers, never eat pork or cheeseburgers, and never drive or eat out on Sundays? Because laws about those things are in the Old Testament, too, and most of us see them as moot points.

Oh wait, and don't forget that you have to hang scripture on your doorframes. :) It says so.

I'm just sayin'. (You know I love you. :) )

love you too Jen! :)

That said, those rules were in the Old Testamant, b/c they were the Law, according to the fall of man in the garden.

Christ died for us, and became our sacrifice, abolishing the need for the Law.

[FrenchRuby]

What about all the books that didn't make into the New Testament thanks partially to lost scripture destroyed under Diocletian, regional differences in canon history, and the personal choices of Constantine's Council and scribes? Books like Didache, Shepherd of Hermas, I Clement, etc.

Even now, the testament canons used in different branches and sects of Christian faith are not set in concrete. Many have variations (Roman Catholic), additional books (Ethiopian Church), fewer books (Nestorians) than the King James Protestant version.

So it seems like people have always picked and chosen what they believe from religious texts, even of the New Testament. I am totally in favour of this, what use is faith if it is by rote and not by thought?

Interesting to read everyone's views!

PS It's theopneustos, and it's Greek.

[Gina.Maria]

I have a question. Is the Old Testament relevant, or not? If it's not, then why is Hosea or Leviticus used to argue against homosexuality?

[strangejen]

Christ died for us, and became our sacrifice, abolishing the need for the Law.

well yes, hon . . . I know that theory. But some people think that the "moral code" laws such as polygamy being acceptable and the few dictates about homosexuality are part of that law that was abolished.

It's SO about interpretation and where you stand with historical scholarship and literary critisicm.

And did you know that there are MANY more warnings about the love of money and mistreating the poor than there are about homosexuality in the Bible? In fact, Jesus never said ANYTHING about homosexuality, but he did speak about adultery. (Kind of harshly, actually -- he thinks anyone who is divorced commits adultery when they remarry.) Many "red-letter Christians" take all this as very significant in regards to their stance on homosexuality.

[Chreamps]

Jen, do you speed read or what? (not being snarky, but I'm amazed at all the books you read girl)!

[AndreaBurns]

What about all the books that didn't make into the New Testament thanks partially to lost scripture destroyed under Diocletian, regional differences in canon history, and the personal choices of Constantine's Council and scribes? Books like Didache, Shepherd of Hermas, I Clement, etc.


To me, its about the God-breathed faith that I have. If God wanted them in the Bible, they would have been there.

Gina~ I believe it is relevant... its Jesus' family tree, its the evolution of the law, and being saved by Grace. Its the Prophetic foretelling of Christ's coming, AND the end times. It describes true love (Song of Solomon) and the "perfect Christian woman" (Proverbs 31). It's the history that leads up to the perfect story.

I think that the LAW is unrelevant, b/c if you continue to read, there were certain sacrifices/ rituals that had to be mad if the LAW was broken. Christ came, died for us, and became the ultimate sacrifice, finally bridging us back to God the Father.

[AndreaBurns]

well yes, hon . . . I know that theory. But some people think that the "moral code" laws such as polygamy being acceptable and the few dictates about homosexuality are part of that law that was abolished.

It's SO about interpretation and where you stand with historical scholarship and literary critisicm.

And did you know that there are MANY more warnings about the love of money and mistreating the poor than there are about homosexuality in the Bible? In fact, Jesus never said ANYTHING about homosexuality, but he did speak about adultery. (Kind of harshly, actually -- he thinks anyone who is divorced commits adultery when they remarry.) Many "red-letter Christians" take all this as very significant in regards to their stance on homosexuality.

Well, we can talk about money too, if you like, ROFLOL!!! :lol

And the literal translation of "Adultery" mean "anyone other than your spouse." This also covers pre-marital sex, homosexuality... yada yada.

Ya'll are putting me to work this morning. My minor in Bible is finally getting some play, LOL!

[Hummie]

This discussion is interesting. I'm trying to refrain from posting my thoughts....although this is a friendly converation, feelings could get hurt.

Thought 1: Each week I listen to the Pastor preacher about both LAW and GOSPEL.

[strangejen]

Jen, do you speed read or what? (not being snarky, but I'm amazed at all the books you read girl)!

Actually, I read VERY fast. I was reading when I was four and I never stopped. Last time I was tested for my typing I was at 93 words a minute with 100% accuracy, and that seriously is relatable to how I read. I was the one everyone hated who turned in their 10 page final in English lit. (when everyone else was just turning to the 3rd page) after 15 minutes -- and that's including writing a ton on the essays. And then I'd end up getting like a 97% and blowing the curve. Yeah, I had some people in high school and college who didn't like me. heh.

I also find obscure times to read -- my lunch hour, during Jake's gymnastics practice, while Jake's in the bath, when I should be sleeping . . . I just can't get enough information!!!!

[strangejen]

Well, we can talk about money too, if you like, ROFLOL!!!

All I'm sayin' . . . is if God loves po' folks . . . he REALLY loves me. LOL

[FrenchRuby]

I see, so God chose the books of the New Testament, through Constantine, et al.

Ergo, if God wanted homosexuality to continue to be abominated it would specifically say so in the New Testament. Does it?

There needs to be some consistency, surely. Either the Old Testament is irrelevant because Love ransomed itself to release humanity from Law, in which case the whole Old Testament is irrelevant, including the anti-gay parts. Or, it isn't irrelevant, in which case as Jen says all Christians should be avoiding seafood, wearing buttons on their pants and not driving on Sundays (amongst other things).

Inconsistency is the enemy of rationality. Without rationality our humanity is lost and our faith is meaningless, becoming only an excuse for non-Christian behaviours (eg judgementalism, bigotry, hatred, anger, persecution, oppression) I cannot see any God approving of.

What kind of God makes a person gay and then labels homosexuality as evil?

And one final thought: did He not makes us in his own image? Even the gay ones?

[AndreaBurns]

ROFLOL, me too! :lol Still got to make sure you tithe though... :p

I've said a LOT... all to say that even though it's pretty obvious I strongly disagree about homosexuality, it does not mean I judge them or not love them. I am commanded to love. Its a sin in their life, just like there is sin in my life.

[strangejen]

those rules were in the Old Testamant, b/c they were the Law, according to the fall of man in the garden.


More obscure history facts:

In the mid-20th century (like . . . 50s and 60s?) when doctors started using pain meds or plain knocking women out during childbirth, there were religious factions (here in the U.S.!) who objected to this, citing that Eve's punishment following the fall was that childbirth would be painful for her and for all women from there on out, and by not feeling the pain, they were going against the word of God.

(I personally more believe in Stadol and epidurals. heh. Stadol is awesome.)

Oh, and I had a friend in college who I was talking to about marriage, and I said I didn't believe in women changing their names -- I just don't see the point. And anyway, how could I give up "Strange?" He looked at me in horror and said "But JENNY -- that's not BIBLICAL." ha ha ha

[strangejen]

FrenchRuby, you so rock.

oh and we have to wear fringes on our clothing, too!!!

[FrenchRuby]

Ah, now that bit I can do :)

[natesabel]

*shudder* I SO can't get into believing that. yucky.

I thought it was called transub . . . something. LOL



And seriously, that's what this book is about I mentioned before!!!!


Just so you know, what you refer to as "yucky" is the absolute core of the Roman Catholic faith. Jesus giving us himself in the Holy Eucharist is the central doctrine of Catholicism and is incredibly sacred to me.
Please choose your words more carefully.

[strangejen]

Please choose your words more carefully.

I'm sorry. I know that Catholics believe that, but it doesn't change the fact that the concept grosses me out.

[AndreaBurns]

Or, it isn't irrelevant, in which case as Jen says all Christians should be avoiding seafood, wearing buttons on their pants and not driving on Sundays (amongst other things).

There is a Christian sect who follows this... they are called the Amish. They also don't believe in music and question their salvation till the end of their days.

What kind of God makes a person gay and then labels homosexuality as evil?

See, I do not believe for an instant that God created homosexuality.

In Bringing Up Boys (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Bringing-Up-Boys/James-Dobson/e/9781414304502/?itm=1), by James Dobson, he describes homosexuality as being defined within the first couple years of life. In boys it is often documented b/c of an absent father, or over demanding mother, sexual abuse.... now I'm not saying this is the case for everyone, but that chapter was REALLY interesting.

And one final thought: did He not makes us in his own image? Even the gay ones?

He did create us in His image. But then Adam and Eve fell into sin in the Garden, and death and sin (evil) entered the world.

[Hummie]

And anyway, how could I give up "Strange?" He looked at me in horror and said "But JENNY -- that's not BIBLICAL." ha ha ha

This made me think about how we are called "peculiar" in the Bible. I like to think I'm peculiar..:lol...yeah, I am a little strange at times.

1Peter2:9But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;

[AndreaBurns]

Oh, and I had a friend in college who I was talking to about marriage, and I said I didn't believe in women changing their names -- I just don't see the point. And anyway, how could I give up "Strange?" He looked at me in horror and said "But JENNY -- that's not BIBLICAL." ha ha ha

LOL. Hey do what you want. But some would also argue that you were born and then given your father's name.... http://ilovephotography.com/forums/style_emoticons/newemoticons/whistle.png

But now I'm just http://ilovephotography.com/forums/style_emoticons/newemoticons/poke.gif

LOL!

[strangejen]

But some would also argue that you were born and then given your father's name.... http://ilovephotography.com/forums/style_emoticons/newemoticons/whistle.png

But now I'm just http://ilovephotography.com/forums/style_emoticons/newemoticons/poke.gif


HA HA HA! Well, my theory is . . . this is my name. It's the name I've had my whole life. I don't want to just up and throw it away, for ANY reason. It's ok that I have dad's name . . . I just don't want to change horses mid-stream.

Also . . . I get SO annoyed when I can't find people on Facebook because they've changed their names and their profile pictures are too small to see who they are! LOL

[FrenchRuby]

OK, so God doesn't make each of us now?

He just made the first two people? Where did Cain's wife come from then?

I am very interested by the Amish, as I am with proponents of all faiths. Understanding religion and belief is the key to my own spirituality, and informs my personal faith.

Interesting claim by James Dobson. I would love to see his research on that.

[AndreaBurns]

OK, so God doesn't make each of us now?

He just made the first two people? Where did Cain's wife come from then?

I am very interested by the Amish, as I am with proponents of all faiths. Understanding religion and belief is the key to my own spirituality, and informs my personal faith.

Interesting claim by James Dobson. I would love to see his research on that.

Ohhh... I never claimed that God didn't make us all. But now there is evil and sin in the world and that clouds the original perfection.

And, as for Cain's wife... lots of theories. It could have been a sibling or cousin of his, (genetics were perfect and unclouded and a non-issue) and God never mentions that he didn't create OTHER humans. It could have been another creation.

Dobson's research is listed in his book.

[strangejen]

It could have been a sibling or cousin of his, (genetics were perfect and unclouded and a non-issue) and God never mentions that he didn't create OTHER humans. It could have been another creation.


Wait, so we can marry our cousins? HOT DOG! :D

[FrenchRuby]

A cousin is the child of the brother or sister of your parent. Did Adam and Eve have siblings?

You can see where I am going with this right? :)

I was being sarcastic about Dobson's research, he hasn't done any :) His claim is just too ridiculous to even stand momentary consideration, especially with all the 'science' parts that clearly demonstrate that he has not one iota of a clue what he is talking about with regard to genetics. It's quite sad really.

[AndreaBurns]

LOL! Well back then, men lived to the ripe old age of 800... so if you want to wait till you are 200 to marry a cousin, go for it....


BWAHAHAHAHA!

[AndreaBurns]

Ruby, frankly and respectfully, I completely disagree.

[Hummie]

Okay....since my church indicates we must proclaim it publically---they say it best. Read the below and more here. (http://www.lcms.org/pages/wPage.asp?ContentID=343&IssueID=24) The verses are given....I encourage everyone to read for themselves and decide for themselves.


In the face of such moral decline, The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod (LCMS) has consistently upheld the Bible-based values that designate “marriage as the lifelong union of one man and one woman (Gen. 2:2–24; Matt. 19:5–6)” (2004 LCMS Convention Resolution 3-05A. . . . All subsequent quotations are from this resolution). The LCMS has consistently held that “homosexual behavior is prohibited in the Old and New Testaments [of Holy Scripture] (Lev. 18:22, 24; 20:13; 1 Cor. 6:9–20; 1 Tim. 1:10) as contrary to the Creator’s design (Rom. 1:26–27).”

As a Christian body in this country, the LCMS has the duty and responsibility to speak publicly in disagreement with this action of the California Supreme Court. In the present context we cannot be silent, since such silence “could be viewed as acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle.” Accordingly, we as a church body urge our leaders, members, congregations, and all Christians “to give a public witness from Scripture against the social acceptance and legal recognition of homosexual ‘marriage.’”

While this occasion calls us to declare that homosexual behavior is both unnatural and sinful (see Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Rom. 1:24–27), we also recognize that it is necessary to respond to these “sexual sins with the same love and concern as all other sins, calling for repentance and offering forgiveness in the Good News of Jesus Christ when there is repentance.”

The Gospel declares that Jesus Christ is the atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world (1 John 2:2), and that Christ, who knew no sin, was made to be our sin so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God (2 Cor. 5:21). It is the church’s proper evangelical work to proclaim the reconciliation of the sinner to God in the death of Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 5:18–19) in a spirit of compassion and humility, recognizing that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by His grace, through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus (Rom. 3:23–24).

Finally, we pray that all people, especially men and women properly united as husbands and wives, will honor God’s divinely ordained relationship of marriage. And we pray that all husbands and wives will “give thanks to God for the blessings of marriage, lead a chaste and decent life, and each love and honor one’s spouse.”

Dr. Gerald B. Kieschnick is president of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod

[hazelsmrf]

Is this whole issue really just boiling down to semantics? It really seems ridiculous. Call it civil union and be done with it. Let the churches keep their marriages and let anyone who wants civil unions have those too. And I guess I shouldn't be called married because I got "married" in city hall and it was a civil ceremony, not a religious one. Keep not agreeing with their lifestyle "choices" but let them legally have the same rights you have.

[FrenchRuby]

Cor. 6:9–20

All about fornication. No direct reference to homosexuality, closests reference is to 'the effeminate'. If this is the basis for opposing homsexuality then presumably the opposition only applies to male homosexuality?

Tim 1:10

For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

Defile isn't a specifically sexual word (thank goodness, wouldn't want to see what defiling a grave involved if it was), and even taken in that context it would relate more literally to masturbation in public than homosexual relations. Or perhaps general fornication. I don't read 'mankind' as being the same as men, it is more suggestive of multiplicity than gender.

Andrea, I respect that you disagree, but I really would suggest you read some basic texts on genetics. Nothing hardcore, just about how genetics works, recessive genes, etc. And also the widely published and non-contested research that shows that homosexuality IS more common in the identical twin of a homosexual than in a fraternal twin or other sibling of a homosexual. This research was carried out on twins that were raised separately after adoption, so environmental factors are randomised out.

Dr Dobson's theory doesn't really explain lesbianism of course. Perhaps he doesn't see the sexuality of women as being relevant? Or maybe he agrees with me about Corinthians.

[strangejen]

To expand on French Ruby's post, I've read that a lot of those passages are also about keeping the Jews -- or in the New Testament, the Christians -- away from other cultures and their pagan practices . . . apparently a lot of the early Christians didn't want to give up their parties at the other temples after they converted. And we all know that a huge theme in the Old Testament is that the Jews should be a people set apart.

[Gina.Maria]

Since this was a discussion about separation of church and state, just let me suggest this - sin is absolutely irrelevant in the making of a law.

It matters not that religion defines homosexuality as an aberration and a sin because secular law should not be made based on any religion's laws or beliefs. It's fine to say that murder is against the law, because we can all agree that killing another person is wrong. We all probably agree that stealing from another person is wrong. We don't all agree that homosexuality is wrong.

[Chreamps]

IMHO, if converting homosexuals were as easy as having them go to church and pray to revert them back to be "straight", there would probably be no homosexuals.

I remember watching an interview with Rosie O'Donnell once where they asked her how she would like her children to turn out (sexual orientation). She replied that she would hope that they would be straight, because it would be so much easier for them in life. (I did not put quotations around this as it is just from memory and gives the basic idea of her reply).

That said, I believe there are those who do sin when they experiment and aren't really homosexuals. But, I do believe homosexuals are born this way and quite a few who come from good, loving homes.

Quite an interesting conversation!

[strangejen]

Since this was a discussion about separation of church and state, just let me suggest this - sin is absolutely irrelevant in the making of a law.

It matters not that religion defines homosexuality as an aberration and a sin because secular law should not be made based on any religion's laws or beliefs. It's fine to say that murder is against the law, because we can all agree that killing another person is wrong. We all probably agree that stealing from another person is wrong. We don't all agree that homosexuality is wrong.


:clap :clap :clap :clap :clap x 1000000000000000000000000000

[FrenchRuby]

I so want to say Amen to that Gina, but now I am afraid to LOL

[Chreamps]

Ruby, maybe, awomen (LOL) - no disrespect intended everyone!

[clmisener]

Ruby, maybe, awomen (LOL) - no disrespect intended everyone!

Ok...now that made me chuckle.

[Hummie]

Since this was a discussion about separation of church and state, just let me suggest this - sin is absolutely irrelevant in the making of a law.

Ahhhhh. So, "the law" is not the same as "the LAW."
Henceforth, what the separation of church and state is all about.

However, I personally feel the law should be created based on the LAW.
Henceforth, the problem.
Henceforth, the reason I consider and place value on these when voting.

***
As an aside, I work every day in the law, but believe in the LAW. I find them for the most part very compatible.

[strangejen]

However, I personally feel the law should be created based on the LAW.

yes, but then we're back to fringes, buttons, and no seafood.

[FrenchRuby]

Fringes are good, and I quite like buttons, but I can't be missing out on prawns and paella. So I guess I am on my way to hell.

See you in there Jen :)

[strangejen]

HA HA HA HA!!!! Your company is welcome ANYWHERE, French Ruby!!! at least I'll have someone to talk to. ;)

[Hummie]

I'm curious.....debate this:

Matthew 22
15Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. 16They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. "Teacher," they said, "we know you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren't swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are. 17Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?"

18But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, "You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? 19Show me the coin used for paying the tax." They brought him a denarius, 20and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?"
21"Caesar's," they replied.
Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." 22When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away.

[Chreamps]

Jen posted:

yes, but then we're back to fringes, buttons, and no seafood.

It wouldn't bother me about the fringes or buttons which are quite purty, but I would miss seafood. So, guess I'll join you and French Ruby there, too!

[strangejen]

I'm curious.....debate this: Matthew 22


Goodness, so many questions surrounding this passage, I don't even know where to start.

Was Jesus talking about the specific current occupying Roman government, or talking about all governments throughout the world, for all time?

Would Jesus want us to obey a ruler who was in power illegially and not elected? Should people in countries ruled by monarchs or dictators just suck it up and deal? What if the ruling party -- fairly elected, whatever that means -- truly goes against your beliefs which you believe are inspired by God?

Would a leader BE the leader of a country if it weren't God's will? Can something that's NOT God's will happen? (This has actually been an argument for why a leader in power should still be the leader.)

Does this mean as Christians we should try to get into government and change it from the inside? Or truly keep those things seperate -- to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's?

It all makes my head hurt. :)

[MrsRomer]

i don't have much time, so this won't be indepth (you're welcome :) LOL )
Gay lifestyles do not need to taught in school. There's no need for it. creation does not need to be taught in (public) schools, but I do not mind it being 'mentioned' as another view. i do not believe any view or religion needs to be forced on the children (wish my son's teachers would shut-up about global warming!), but at the same time, don't tell me my son can't bow his head and say a silent prayer. Actually, I feel blessed to live in the south, we're still allowed to say grace at a banquet or prayer before a game.

Again, I repeat, i do not believe religion should be taught in public school (unless as an elective) and NEVER forced upon an individual ~ but can you tell me honestly that students are better off today than 20 or 30 years ago since certain groups have gone fanatical about getting God out of all public places? :shrug

[Microferk ~ Miki Ferkul]

Ahhhhh. So, "the law" is not the same as "the LAW."
Henceforth, what the separation of church and state is all about.

However, I personally feel the law should be created based on the LAW.
Henceforth, the problem.
Henceforth, the reason I consider and place value on these when voting.

***
As an aside, I work every day in the law, but believe in the LAW. I find them for the most part very compatible.

But what if, at some point, the majority of people thought the law should be based on Islamic Sharia? Should that be put to vote and applied across the land to everyone, regardless of their faith? What if the Law of Christianity dictates or restricts things that are in direct opposition to others' spiritually held beliefs?

[movefearlessly]

Can something that's NOT God's will happen?
yes; absolutely and unequivocally. i believe in forces of evil, and evil is not God's will. it's a battle that will continue until the end of this world.

[Canay]

Would someone list verses in the bible that discuss homosexuality? I remember reading about eunuch's in the bible. Specifically that some are born that way and some are created by man. But I'm not recalling any specific references to homosexuality.

Thanks.

[AndreaBurns]

Leviticus 18:22 (New American Standard Bible)

22:You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

[FrenchRuby]

Old Testament again. We are going round in circles LOL

And again only applies to men (presumably).

[strangejen]

And again only applies to men (presumably).

but what if they're standing up?

HA HA HA.

*ahem* . . . sorry.

[Microferk ~ Miki Ferkul]

but what if they're standing up?

HA HA HA.

*ahem* . . . sorry.

:rofl2

too much!

[Chreamps]

Jen posted:

but what if they're standing up?

:rofl2:rofl2:rofl2

Stop, stop!

[strangejen]

can I apologize in advance for people who didn't think that was funny? I really don't ever mean to be offensive.

[Hummie]

But what if, at some point, the majority of people thought the law should be based on Islamic Sharia? Should that be put to vote and applied across the land to everyone, regardless of their faith? What if the Law of Christianity dictates or restricts things that are in direct opposition to others' spiritually held beliefs?

Please note. In an above comment I said that I do believe in the separation of church and state. As you state "be put ot a vote"....that is what makes our country so great. So we all need to get out and vote.

Please note. In several of my comments I indicate the word "personally".....in other words, for me personally, I want to hear the candidates positions on these issues so that I can "personally" see if they go with my religious beliefs or not so that I can make a choice as to who to vote for.

Would I vote for a candidate of Islamic derivitive over a Christian? No.

You ask "the majority of people thought the law should be based on Islamic Sharia"....my answer: If the majority voted against what I voted for, I would have to submit to authority as that is what my God tells me in the Bible, or remove myself from that authority if it requires me to do things against my religion (ie. move to another country or buy me a private island and live happily ever after in a grand spectacular oasis made especially for me by God).

[strangejen]

what if they won't grant you a passport based on your political and religious dissent?

[Thena]

Here's a link that you might find interesting.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c040.html

What people don't think about is that the things we are doing in our country by taking God out of everything will usher in
a time (the end times) when there will be one world religion under the coming anti christ and you won't be able to buy, sell, travel or anything without the mark that God
has warned us about. All the things we debate about freely now will not be open to debate then.

I believe the things foretold in Revelation are getting close. Have any of you watched the Left Behind movies?

[FrenchRuby]

Actually, that's a really valid point Jen (as I know you know).

There was a very interesting paper by Arthur Waskow (a rabbi) about this very passage which sheds a different perspective. Quoted from source:

"The whole structure of sexuality in Torah assumes a dominant, male and a subordinate woman."In a male homosexual act of anal intercourse, one partner may be viewed as taking a passive role - that normally played by a woman. Thus anal intercourse between two gay men would be as improper in Biblical times as a workplace situation in which a woman supervised a man.

Waskow cites two alternative meanings to the passage:

"Do not lie with a man as if it were the same thing as lying with a woman." That is, when two gay males have a sexual encounter, they should continuously be aware that it is different from a male-female coupling. It might be interpreted to mean: "Set up a parallel set of institutions for dealing with this kind of sexual relationship, different from those that apply to sexual relationships between a man and a woman."

"Do not sleep with a man as it were with a woman" That is, if two males engage in a sexual act, neither should pretend that the passive partner is like a woman. They should be fully aware of their sexual orientation and maleness. i.e. they should come out of the "closet" and recognize their gayness. Traditional Jewish and Christian belief is that God dictated the Torah to Moses. Thus every word was included for a specific reason. If God wished to ban all gay homosexual acts then it could be argued that the passage would have read "You shall not lie with a male." The addition of the phrase "as with a woman" must have been included for a specific reason. Perhaps it was added to give the passage one of the above meanings.

[AndreaBurns]

Homosexuality was called out in the New Testament.

In Jude it describes the fate of Sodom in the Bible. The author describes the fate of all those who like Sodom, practice ‘perverted sex'.

Also in Romans, Paul writes about homosexuality...

Romans 1:26-2726For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

[Hummie]

Would someone list verses in the bible that discuss homosexuality? I remember reading about eunuch's in the bible. Specifically that some are born that way and some are created by man. But I'm not recalling any specific references to homosexuality.

Thanks.

My church always says it best (http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2724). It is also addressed in the link to the article (http://www.lcms.org/pages/wPage.asp?ContentID=343&IssueID=24)I gave earlier.

WHEREAS, The Word of God clearly condemns homophile behavior in Lev. 18:22, Rom. 1:26-27, and 1 Cor. 6:9; and

[Chreamps]

Jen Posted:

what if they won't grant you a passport based on your political and religious dissent?

And all the continents merged; thereby making it impossible to leave?

Hummie, only kidding you (((hugs))) I blame it on Jen!

[AndreaBurns]

Here's a link that you might find interesting.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c040.html

Thena, thats a really great article.

[strangejen]

And all the continents merged; thereby making it impossible to leave?

HA HA HA HA HA.

that was awesome.

[rainbowkitty]

if you are going to quote levitical law, please please please tell me that you also follow all of the dietary laws also written during that same time. I do not consider myself a pick and choose Christian, though I am sure many would say that is exactly what I am. I just consider myself educated, on the issue of homosexuality. Again, if you REALLY want to know how I feel please read www.godmademegay.com. He sums it up better than I ever can. And he is a heterosexual minister.
But beyond that, I am also a believer in the seperation of the two issues, you do not have to think I am right, to believe that they deserve basic civil rights. As for the issue of the bible, I am looking to find more sources of what I said. When I do, I will post them. If I am wrong though, I will be more than willing to learn this and admit my mistake. I too am very curious to learn the truth.
But my belief that being gay is not a sin is because I believe that you are born gay, that it is not nor has it ever been a choice, so thus it is not a sin. Its how you were made. And this is something that almost all scientist, psychologist and medical professionals now agree on. And that it can not be changed, period.

[rainbowkitty]

"Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 Revised Standard Version:
22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman, it is an abomination.
13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death...

The King James and New International versions say virtually the same thing.

Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are the only direct references to same-gender sex in the Old Testament. They are both part of the Old Testament Holiness Code, a religious, not a moral code; it later became the Jewish Purity Laws. ["Abomination" is used throughout the Old Testament to designate sins that involve ethnic contamination or idolatry. The word relates to the failure to worship God or to worshiping a false god; it does not relate to morality.] Professor Soards tell us, "Old Testament experts view the regulations of Leviticus as standards of holiness, directives for the formation of community life, aimed at establishing and maintaining a people's identity in relation to God."B-4 This is because God was so determined that his people would not adopt the practices of the Baal worshipers in Canaan, and same-gender sex was part of Baal worship. (The laws say nothing about women engaging in same-gender sex; probably this had to do with man's dominance, and such acts by the subservient had nothing to do with religious impurity.)
God required purity for his worship. Anything pure was unadulterated, unmixed with anything else These Purity Laws prohibited mixing different threads in one garment, sowing a field with two kinds of seed, crossbreeding animals. A few years ago in Israel when an orthodox government came into power, McDonalds had to stop selling cheeseburgers. Hamburgers, OK. Cheese sandwiches, OK. But mixing milk and meat in one sandwich violated the Purity Laws--it had nothing to do with morality. These were laws about worshipping God, not ethics, and so have no bearing on our discussion of morality. Helmut Thielicke remarks on these passages: "It would never occur to anyone to wrench these laws of cultic purification from their concrete situation and give them the kind of normative authority that the Decalogue, for example, has."B-5

Another reason they are not pertinent to our discussion is that these laws were for the particular time and circumstances existing when they were given. If you planted a fruit tree, you could not eat its fruit until its fifth year, and all fruit the fourth year must be offered to the Lord. A worker must be paid his wage on the day of his labor. You must not harvest a field to its edge. We readily dismiss most of them as not applicable to our day and culture, and if we dismiss some of them for any reason, we have to dismiss all of them, including the sexual regulations, for that same reason."

[Hummie]

IMHO, if converting homosexuals were as easy as having them go to church and pray to revert them back to be "straight", there would probably be no homosexuals.


Being homosexual is a "sin." So let's look at what you said in that light.

IMHO, if converting those with sin were as easy as having them go to church and pray to revert to ways with no sin, there would probably be no sinners.


I'm a sinner. I go to church and pray. I repent. But I still sin.

[strangejen]

This is because God was so determined that his people would not adopt the practices of the Baal worshipers in Canaan, and same-gender sex was part of Baal worship.

Yay! I love when people give actual evidence of something I mention in passing because I thought I'd heard it somewhere. LOL.

[Hummie]

what if they won't grant you a passport based on your political and religious dissent?

Didn't they have "Holy Wars" in the Bible?

[strangejen]

A few years ago in Israel when an orthodox government came into power, McDonalds had to stop selling cheeseburgers. Hamburgers, OK. Cheese sandwiches, OK. But mixing milk and meat in one sandwich violated the Purity Laws--it had nothing to do with morality.

We had a practicing Jew come visit our Sunday School class last year to talk to us about Judiasm (she was AWESOME) and when she mentioned the no mixing meat and dairy, I immediately said "Wait . . . no cheeseburgers?!" She thought it was pretty funny, then went on to explain that some take it so far as to have seperate fridges, sinks, utensils, dishwashers, etc, for any handling of those two categories -- they keep it THAT seperate.

Fascinating.

[Microferk ~ Miki Ferkul]

Please note. In an above comment I said that I do believe in the separation of church and state. As you state "be put ot a vote"....that is what makes our country so great. So we all need to get out and vote.

Please note. In several of my comments I indicate the word "personally".....in other words, for me personally, I want to hear the candidates positions on these issues so that I can "personally" see if they go with my religious beliefs or not so that I can make a choice as to who to vote for.

Would I vote for a candidate of Islamic derivitive over a Christian? No.

You ask "the majority of people thought the law should be based on Islamic Sharia"....my answer: If the majority voted against what I voted for, I would have to submit to authority as that is what my God tells me in the Bible, or remove myself from that authority if it requires me to do things against my religion (ie. move to another country or buy me a private island and live happily ever after in a grand spectacular oasis made especially for me by God).

Well that would be why I think it is imperative to keep the wall up ;-) Some things should never be voted upon, KWIM? This country exists for each and everyone, and laws based on religiously-held beliefs are transient to the powers-that-be incontrol. That is why a foundation must exist independent of religiosity in our government. We cannot bend and twist to whichever religious entity is stronger, louder or more populous. Our laws serve to protect the minority interests as well as the majority.

[strangejen]

Well that would be why I think it is imperative to keep the wall up ;-) Some things should never be voted upon, KWIM? This country exists for each and everyone, and laws based on religiously-held beliefs are transient to the powers-that-be-in-control. That is why a foundation must exist independent of religiosity in our government. We cannot ebnd and twist to whichever religious entity is stronger, louder or more populous. OUr laws always prtect the minority interests as well as the majority.

TOTALLY!!!! Very well said!!!!

[Hummie]

Here's a link that you might find interesting.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c040.html

What people don't think about is that the things we are doing in our country by taking God out of everything will usher in
a time (the end times) when there will be one world religion under the coming anti christ and you won't be able to buy, sell, travel or anything without the mark that God
has warned us about. All the things we debate about freely now will not be open to debate then.

I believe the things foretold in Revelation are getting close. Have any of you watched the Left Behind movies?

Ah! Great page!

A Reader's Digest Condensed version:
1. Homosexuals feel they were born that way and cannot help how they are.
2. Christians feels that it is a choice and that God did not make them that way (as they were made in the image of God).

I like this quote from that page:
To the extent that biological or social factors may contribute to a person's bent toward homosexual behavior, this does not excuse it. Some people have a strong bent towards stealing or abuse of alcohol, but they still choose to engage or not engage in this behavior the law rightly holds them accountable.


*********
Left behind? Sorry....don't believe in it. It's a stick in my side, so I won't talk about it.

[pton]

Well that would be why I think it is imperative to keep the wall up ;-) Some things should never be voted upon, KWIM? This country exists for each and everyone, and laws based on religiously-held beliefs are transient to the powers-that-be incontrol. That is why a foundation must exist independent of religiosity in our government. We cannot bend and twist to whichever religious entity is stronger, louder or more populous. Our laws serve to protect the minority interests as well as the majority.

Very well said.

[Chreamps]

Hummie posted:

I'm a sinner. I go to church and pray. I repent. But I still sin.

Refreshing to see you say that, Hummie, I've been around too many that go that act as if they are "above" us who don't attend.

Guess homosexuality depends on your view - you view it as a sin, I view it as a biological condition.

[Thena]

Moving right along to global warming....:-)

[strangejen]

hey, if we're going to obsess about "sexual sin," I'm much more concerned about the punks who have like 6 baby mamas who you see on Maury trying to figure out whose is whose. (And I ONLY watch those shows when I'm home sick and am flipping through channels and then I pause on it and I'm too fascinated/disgusted to look away.)

[4noisyboys]

Moving right along to global warming....:-)
:rofl2:rofl2:rofl2

[Chreamps]

Thena posted:

Moving right along to global warming....:-)

"drumstick hitting a cymbol" - great timing, Thena!

[Hummie]

Hummie posted:

Guess homosexuality depends on your view - you view it as a sin, I view it as a biological condition.

Well, to put this better and to take religion out of it:

"Homosexuality depends on your view-- a choice or a biological condition."

[FrenchRuby]

Jude 1:7: "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."

"Strange Flesh" is a translation from the original Greek sarkos heteras which is more literally translated as 'different' or 'dissimilar' flesh. Heteras is the root from which we get heterosexual (sexual attraction to the dissimilar gender), heterogenous (consisting of dissimilar parts), etc.

Since the crowd in Sodom were calling to have sex with angels, and angels being non-human, that alone makes them dissimilar flesh, regardless of their gender. There was also a Jewish legend that the women of Sodom had sex with angels, again there is no specific reference to the crowd scene in Jude's chapter, only to the damnation of Sodom in general. Therefore we must be careful not to assume we know what specific incident he may have been referring to.

Returning to the status of women once again, fornication is the product of desire for dissimilar or unknown flesh. Since the flesh of your wife is your property, the flesh of another woman is not. So perhaps again it is simply a reference to fornication in general.

I don't think that without specific clarity of textual meaning (which does exist on other topics in other places in the Bible, it wasn't always vague), we tread a fine line between comprehension of a positively identified message and the convenient interpretation of generalities as specifics.

Romans 1:18-27: For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore, God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

So, looks like Paul agrees that God makes homosexuals homosexual then.

Well, maybe not.

The persons Paul condemns are manifestly not homosexual: what he derogates are homosexual acts committed by apparently heterosexual persons….It is not clear that Paul distinguished in his thoughts or writings between gay persons (in the sense of permanent sexual preference) and heterosexuals who simply engaged in periodic homosexual behavior. It is in fact unlikely that many Jews of his day recognized such a distinction, but it is quite apparent that–whether or not he was aware of their existence–Paul did not discuss gay persons but only homosexual acts committed by heterosexual persons.

John Boswell, Professor of History, Yale University

PS Sorry about the wonky font, I think I buggered something up (no pun intended) pasting in the Jude verse.

[Hollie]

Would someone list verses in the bible that discuss homosexuality? I remember reading about eunuch's in the bible. Specifically that some are born that way and some are created by man. But I'm not recalling any specific references to homosexuality.

Thanks.

You can go to BibleGateway.com, and you can look up any word or words, phrases, etc you like and get a listing of the verses that contain them. You can also get a full Bible concordance (a giant book LOL) and look up different key words that way. There are many, many, many Bible study aides available to help you study the Bible topically as well. You may not always find a specific word, but the topic may still be covered, so you have to make sure you study carefully:) For instance, looking up the word "Homosexual" in the NLT gave about 5 major passages of scripture. Looking them up in the Message gave none.

I do urge people to study the Bible in its entirety though. I really don't think topical is the way to go--unless you've already studied the Bible as a whole and have a good grasp on it. Studying the Bible topically lends itself to taking things out of context, which also leads to misinterpretation. If you are interested in studying the Bible to see what it says and actually decide for yourself what you believe about it, one of the best ways to do this is through what is called "inductive Bible study." It is a method of carefully examining the scripture, in context, and drawing conclusions and applications after you understand them properly. It is not a denominational type of study--it leads you to study the Bible for yourself. There are no doctrines at all--just the Word of God. If you want even more help with studying the Bible, there are tons and tons of reference book available. Historical and cultural books, commentaries, etc.

Here are two books that will teach you how to study the Bible for yourself:

Living By the Book: The Art and Science of Reading the Bible (http://www.amazon.com/Living-Book-Science-Reading-Bible/dp/0802408230/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221071351&sr=8-1)

How to Study Your Bible: The Lasting Rewards of the Inductive Method (http://www.amazon.com/How-Study-Your-Bible-Inductive/dp/0736905448/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221071439&sr=1-1)

And, since I was sooooooo long winded LOL, I may as well answer your question:) Here is one reference to the topic, in the new Testament...

Corinthians 6:9-10 (New King James Bible)
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,[a] nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.

I'd still urge you to look at it, study it, etc, in context of the passage, and study the Bible itself to determine what it says on the topic, and also, how God's people are told to respond:)



Sorry to be so long--hope this helped you!

[Chreamps]

Holly posted:

Corinthians 6:9-10 (New King James Bible)
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,[a] nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.

Oh, so no politicians (LOL) - sorry I'm still feeling goofy today.

Thanks for the links, Holly. I have tried to read the bible and have never been able to get past the "begatting parts". If you could recommend a good "plain english" bible, would appreciate it.

[FrenchRuby]

Already covered the Corinthians passage a few pages back. The word the King James translates as homosexual (as in your quote) translates literally as 'effeminate'. Not the same thing, and probably refers to eunuchs (feminised males).

But I agree it is worth reading all scriptures comprehensively in order to gather a better perspective. Not only true of the Bible either.

[strangejen]

Oh, so no politicians (LOL) - sorry I'm still feeling goofy today.

ha ha ha.

and no divorcee's, either, if we hold to Jesus's definition of adultery. (Which, again, I think is a bit harsh. Don't get all get a "by" for one starter marriage? HA HA HA. kidding. I'm kidding.)

[Thena]

The Greek (http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/greek.html) word arsenokoitai used in 1 Timothy 1:10 (http://www.christiananswers.net/bible/1tim1.html#10) literally means “men who sleep with men.” It is the same Greek word used for “homosexual offender” in 1 Corinthians 6:9 (http://www.christiananswers.net/bible/1cor6.html#9), variously translated as “abusers of themselves with mankind” (KJV), homosexuals (NASB) or homosexual offender (NIV).

[strangejen]

I have tried to read the bible and have never been able to get past the "begatting parts".

Don't try to read it from front to end the first time. LOL. I like the gospel of John to start with, it's my favorite. Kind of sums things up. It's more poetic, too, than the other gospels, I think -- In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God, and the Word was God. It's just . . . purdy. :) Easy to read.

[Thena]

Well, I have things to do, places to go and people to see. Carry on.

Hugs to all

[AndreaBurns]

For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

So, looks like Paul agrees that God makes homosexuals homosexual then.


No, you are missing the whole "receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error." As in they will be punished.

God gave us free will, so He allowed them their free will here, but not w/o retribution later.

[AndreaBurns]

Well, I have things to do, places to go and people to see. Carry on.

Hugs to all

LOOL. I know, must. stop. checking. this. thread!

[Chreamps]

Jen posted:

Don't try to read it from front to end the first time. LOL. I like the gospel of John to start with, it's my favorite. Kind of sums things up. It's more poetic, too, than the other gospels, I think -- In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God, and the Word was God. It's just . . . purdy. :) Easy to read.Thanks, Jen, I'll try that. Then if I can understand it!

Andrea posted:

LOL. I know, must. stop. checking. this. thread!Yes, my "to do" list hasn't really changed much today (LOL) - gets your brain to working, though, don't it?

[Hollie]

Oh, so no politicians (LOL) - sorry I'm still feeling goofy today.

Thanks for the links, Holly. I have tried to read the bible and have never been able to get past the "begatting parts". If you could recommend a good "plain english" bible, would appreciate it.

I soooooooo hear ya! My first Bible was "the Living Bible" I don't think it is so easy to find anymore. LOL:)

But the New Living Translation (NLT) and The Message are very helpful for this. They are *not* the best if you are looking for literal translation, but they are very helpful for reading it and not feeling like you are reading ancient English. A lot of people like the NIV (New International Version) because it is a well regarded translation and also has relatively easy readability. The Message is actually not a translation, but a paraphrase, so a lot of liberty is taken in its writing. I can't remember if the NLT is a paraphrase or not, but I think it is. The one I started with is also a paraphrase type Bible, but it was so helpful to me to start with it. I later switched to the NIV and now I primarily use the New King James. I also own the New American Standard Bible, which is considered one of the most accurate translations, but the readability is not so hot. It just doesn't flow well. Useful for study though.

BTW--these are all "protestant" Bibles. The Catholic Bible has more books in it than the Protestant Bible. Protestants call the other books in the Catholic Bible "The Apocrypha." It is considered useful for study, but is not considered Divine inspiration.

There are so many versions in English, it is mind-boggling. I always remind myself--"To whom much is given, much is required" when I think about it:)

Yeah--I know...I'm long winded. I can't help it. Haha. Hope this helps!

[Hummie]

I'm trying to stay away too. I am also trying to refrain from commenting .... some of this is so (I'm not going to say what I'm thinking).

Chris, some people really find The Message easy to read. I read the NIV, but the New Living Translation I think is easy to read....umm...have to go home to be sure what version that is that my boys like the best...I think it's the NLT...but I have to check.

Just go to the store and pick up various types and read to see which one you like best.

[Stacey Crossley]

So you never wear clothing of mixed fixers, never eat pork or cheeseburgers, and never drive or eat out on Sundays? Because laws about those things are in the Old Testament, too, and most of us see them as moot points.

Oh wait, and don't forget that you have to hang scripture on your doorframes. :) It says so.

I'm just sayin'. (You know I love you. :) )

It says so in the Old Testament--then Jesus came along and changed it all up.

[Hollie]

Oh, so no politicians (LOL) - sorry I'm still feeling goofy today.



No problem--I like goofy:) I personally tend to look most at the things that I think might be wrong in my own life when I see passages like that. But if you read the next sentence, where it states that Christ has rescued us from that and forgiven us (I'm paraphrasing:)), I am so thankful:)

[FrenchRuby]

But the "receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error" comes WITHIN the list of degrading passions God gave them over to.

It's all semantics, of course. Inevitable, when you are dealing with a number of texts written thousands of years ago by people who weren't even there at the time of the things they are writing about, who didn't write them down but told the stories and sermons verbally to others who told others who eventually wrote down versions which have subsquently been edited, translated through at least two languages, and otherwise mucked about with, there isn't going to be clarity for either position.

Which is why for me personal interpretation is so important. It has been very interesting to read everyone's views. For me faith is something you find yourself through reading, comparing, talking, listening and most importantly, thinking. If you have not discovered it yourself but have only taken on the ideas and views of another person and accepted their 'wisdom' without consideration, debate and a LOT of questioning, then you do not have faith, you have indoctrination.

I hope everyone who has participated in this fascinating discussion has found something within it to strengthen their personal faith in one way or another, as I have.

[Thena]

A good link
Judge Not" Does Not Mean "Disconnect Thy Brain"
http://pulpitpounder.blogspot.com/2005/06/judge-not-does-not-mean-disconnect-thy.html

This has been interesting to see how people feel about different things.
I can disagree what something people say and still love them.
I can disagree with their lifestyle and still love them.

[Chreamps]

Just couldn't stay away, could you, Thena? Only kidding!

[Thena]

LOL It is a genetic defficiency I have....being nosey:lol

[Chreamps]

Thena posted:

...being nosey:lol

I don't take it as being nosey (LOL) curiousity!!

[SteinwaysMom/DebraTope]

There are too many laws being passed that try to censor people from expressing their views because some special interest group is 'offended' by said free speech. Being offended is the price I am willing to pay to live in a free country. I would rather live in a country where someone is free to denigrate my religion and belief system than a country where I can use anti-defamation laws to punish them for expressing said beliefs. I see this happening in Europe and Canada but also in the states.

I think in general, separation of church and state is healthy and the best for all, but there seem to be some groups that are using this concept to try to censor any form of religious expression within the public sphere. For example, a HUD apartment complex tells residents they can't put up any non-secular holiday decorations or children being told they can't bring a Bible to school or conduct voluntary prayer.

As the government creeps into more and more areas of our lives, I think cases of this type of censorship will only increase.

[Microferk ~ Miki Ferkul]

I think in general, separation of church and state is healthy and the best for all, but there seem to be some groups that are using this concept to try to censor any form of religious expression within the public sphere. For example, a HUD apartment complex tells residents they can't put up any non-secular holiday decorations or children being told they can't bring a Bible to school or conduct voluntary prayer.

Re the HUD apartment complex: that is totally HORRID- and I believe it violates their free speech rights.

Re the children and a Bible: totally bogus- the Bible, the Koran, their own Book of Shadows, the Torah - they should be free to have access for their private reading moments with any of them.

Re the children conducting voluntary prayer in school: yup. Add the other prayers~ the Muslim prayers that occur 6 times per day, the Wiccan Rede, and those other denomination's prayers I've missed. Although by the time they are done, they might not have a whole lot of instruction time :giggle

[Thena]

I'm baaaaaaaaaaaackkkkkkkkk

For the person who was having a difficult time getting started reading the Bible:

http://blueletterbible.org/audio_video/courson_jon/Act/Acts_template.html

[Microferk ~ Miki Ferkul]

Hi Thena :wave

[Tiffikat]

Prefacing this with the fact that I haven't read any of the replies (sorry girls I'm hopping in late on this one!)...

It's interesting that you should ask this and that you are from Ohio, where it clearly states on our Governor's letterhead and on our capital building, "With God, All Things Are Possible". (Have you ever noticed that? What do you think about it?)

I'm in Cincinnati so I have not ever actually seen the capital building. I also have yet to ever get a letter from the Governor. I don't think something like that should be on the letter head though.

[Thena]

:lol:loveLOL...Hi Miki

Now hubby says that we really must leave and take the furkids for a walk!

[SteinwaysMom/DebraTope]

Re the HUD apartment complex: that is totally HORRID- and I believe it violates their free speech rights.

Re the children and a Bible: totally bogus- the Bible, the Koran, their own Book of Shadows, the Torah - they should be free to have access for their private reading moments with any of them.

Re the children conducting voluntary prayer in school: yup. Add the other prayers~ the Muslim prayers that occur 6 times per day, the Wiccan Rede, and those other denomination's prayers I've missed. Although by the time they are done, they might not have a whole lot of instruction time :giggle

I think what is happening is these situations are occuring because of a misinterpretation or confusion in regard to the separation of church and state. The assumption that government involvement in schools or other public institution or service precludes voluntary religious expression is chilling and often erroneous but it shows the extent to which are being conditioned to think of it as a 'bad thing'.

I am not that bothered by stuff like the 10 Commandments monument in courthouses, phrases on coins because those are more a reflection of historical influences/roots than an active endorsement of religion. I think banning Christmas trees or old cross monuments for being too "religious" is just as dumb as banning references to the Easter Bunny or painting over murals of ancient Greek/Roman murals in public spaces because they come from paganism. All cultures are shaped by various religions and trying to expunge historical and cultural references from the public sphere strikes me as political correctness run amok as are attempts in Great Britain to ban stories like 'the three little pigs' for fear of offending Muslims.

[Microferk ~ Miki Ferkul]

Right Debra. I think as long as you aren't allowing for the discrimination of those religions/paths- even those you may find repugnant in light of your own faith's dictates- and allow each person the same types of expressions of their faith, you're within the law.

[Microferk ~ Miki Ferkul]

BTW- your butt-wiggling bunny is too cute Debra- he makes me laugh every time I look at him~

[Chreamps]

Posted by Miki:

BTW- your butt-wiggling bunny is too cute Debra- he makes me laugh every time I look at him~

Now, see I had to go back to check that out (LOL) really cute! I used to have a wabbit - named his "Bugs", Bugs Bunny that is! Okay, I'll stop now.

[Tiffikat]

Gay marriage/union will not hurt anyone. What stake do you have in whether your gay neighbor's partner can direct his wishes at his mate's deathbed? Why does it make sense that a gay couple's children become legal orphans when the adoptive or birth parent dies?

One of the reasons I am such a believer that gay marriage not only should be allowed but is necessary is what happens when a parent dies. My mother was gay and when she died my senior year of high school, both my sister and I should have been able to live with our "step-mother". However, we were not and I won't go into details, but I will say a lot of terrible things happened to my sister that changed her life in a bad way and may not have happened if she had been able to stay in a stable home with a mother that loved her.

As far as calling it a civil union goes, if that's what it takes then I'm for it, as long as everyone has the same rights call it what you like. Using the argument that marriage is religious and that's why it cannot be called marriage for gays is interesting to me though as I am married and it has nothing to do with religion for us. Should we also have a civil union instead of a marriage?

Well that would be why I think it is imperative to keep the wall up ;-) Some things should never be voted upon, KWIM? This country exists for each and everyone, and laws based on religiously-held beliefs are transient to the powers-that-be incontrol. That is why a foundation must exist independent of religiosity in our government. We cannot bend and twist to whichever religious entity is stronger, louder or more populous. Our laws serve to protect the minority interests as well as the majority.

:clap

[clogs1228]

See, I do not believe for an instant that God created homosexuality.

This brings up an interesting thing. There are "gay" animals, so how did they become gay if God did not do it? When we went to visit the dolphin center in Key West they said dolphins mate for life and they had a two male dolphins who were paired and it was common. So how do you explain them? Maybe they are more evolved then we know and they chose to be gay. Just kidding! :lol There are several species of monkeys who also pair up with a mat of the same sex.

Just my thoughts.

[Hummie]

BTW- your butt-wiggling bunny is too cute Debra- he makes me laugh every time I look at him~
But I want the wine that Miki is offering. Sigh. I have a shirt that says that!

[SteinwaysMom/DebraTope]

One of the reasons I am such a believer that gay marriage not only should be allowed but is necessary is what happens when a parent dies. My mother was gay and when she died my senior year of high school, both my sister and I should have been able to live with our "step-mother". :clap

Gay couples should definitely have rights for wills, hospital visitations and stuff like that.

My biggest concern as a Christian is I'm seeing more and more cases where people are being censured on matters of conscience. For example, the photographer in NM who declined to shoot a gay wedding - they honestly felt uncomfortable accepting the gig because of their religious beliefs. They were fined $5000 for discrimination. There are also cases where doctors who only wanted to do artificial inseminations for married couples were fined for refusing to provide the service to lesbians/single women.

There is a difference between refusing to serve an individual and not wanting to provide support services for an event whose theme violates the individual's conscience so the increase in these types of incidents concerns me. I also think refusing to provide elective medical procedures is vastly different than refusing treatment for health conditions.

Finally, I am concerned about activism in the schools that is overriding parent's desire to handle issues of sexual morality privately and sell kids an aggressive pro homosexual message. I really think the schools should focus on learning and stay out of that kind of thing. We should teach kids to treat each other w/respect in spite of differing beliefs about various issues - not try to force kids to change their beliefs to fit one agenda or another.

[Microferk ~ Miki Ferkul]

But I want the wine that Miki is offering. Sigh. I have a shirt that says that!


I go myself a t shirt this summer that says that too! :lol
I likes me wine. Less carbs.

[rainbowkitty]

As for animals and homosexuality, there are over three hundred documented species in which homosexuality occurs.

[rainbowkitty]

Another direct cut and paste from godmademegay.com
I Corinthians 6:9 King James Version:
9...Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [malakoi], nor abusers of themselves with mankind [arsenokoitai], 10 Nor thieves..., shall inherit the kingdom of God.

New International Version
9...Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes [malakoi] nor homosexual offenders [arsenokoitai] 10 nor thieves...will inherit the kingdom of God.

Revised Standard Version--1952 edition:
9...Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals [malakoi and arsenokoitai], 10 nor thieves..., will inherit the kingdom of God.

Revised Standard Version--1971 edition:
9...Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts [malakoi and arsenokoitai], 10 nor thieves..., will inherit the kingdom of God.

A comparison of how the two Greek words are translated in the different versions shows that translations often, unfortunately, become the interpretations of the translators. In I Cor. 6:9 Paul lists the types of persons who will be excluded from the kingdom of God and for some he uses the Greek words malakoi and arsenokoitai. KJ translates the first "effeminate," a word that has no necessary connection with homosexuals. The NIV translates the first "male prostitutes" and the second, "homosexual offenders". The RSV in its first edition of 1952 translated both words by the single term, "homosexuals". In the revised RSV of 1971, the translation "homosexuals" is discarded and the two Greek words are translated as "sexual perverts"; obviously the translators had concluded the earlier translation was not supportable.

Malakoi literally means "soft" and is translated that way by both KJ and RSV in Matt. 11:8 and Luke 7:25. When it is used in moral contexts in Greek writings it has the meaning of morally weak; a related word, malakia, when used in moral contexts, means dissolute and occasionally refers to sexual activity but never to homosexual acts. There are at least five Greek words that specifically mean people who practice same-gender sex. Unquestionably, if Paul had meant such people, he would not have used a word that is never used to mean that in Greek writings when he had other words that were clear in that meaning. He must have meant what the word commonly means in moral contexts, "morally weak." There is no justification, most scholars agree, for translating it "homosexuals."