Masquerouge
Deity
Zarn said:I mean show me where it is infallible. You do know what makes something infallible right?
Edit: The French did win the American Revolution in a way.
Not really. The French spelling is infaillible
Homosexuals Get Equal Rights In New Jersey
- Thread starter Godwynn
- Start date
Not really. The French spelling is infaillible
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
I dont know where it is that it is infallible nor do I know what makes something infallible.Zarn said:
Gilder
Deity
So we should just say that discriminating against homosexuals and denying marriage is open-minded? We have been open-minded, but the reasoning behind such beliefs are not so tolerant.
Zarn
Le Républicain Catholique
Masquerouge said:Not really. The French spelling is infaillible
Does it really matter how it is spelled or what actual word is used.
CG: I never seen anything that said this was an infallible viewpoint. Until that happens, Catholic are allowed to disgree within the Church.
Edit: Apparently, Perfection knows the 'real' way to spell infallible.
Perfection
The Great Head.
How cand you possibly accept that something is infalliable, then?CivGeneral said:
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
What are Catholics allowed to disagree within the Church? Personally, I cannot have myself disagreeing with the Church.Zarn said:
Zarn
Le Républicain Catholique
CivGeneral said:
Anything that is not delcared infallible. There is no complete list, but you should look it up. Even Wiki has something on it.
CurtSibling
ENEMY ACE™
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2001
- Messages
- 29,455
CivGeneral said:
CG, you are a thinking, imaginative human being!
Please stop acting like a Cylon and realise that you can adapt.
.
CivGeneral said:
To define precedent mainly, it's infallible in it's dogma because of the history of the church, because to draw people together and to make them follow they needed an infallible figure, or a mouth piece of God, and needed to divorce themselves from all the controversy within the churches dogma. With the arguments that were growing, the church would of fallen apart without a concencus. Essentially the Church couldn't become a union of ecumenical faith unless it had an overarching principal figure. It's politically and religiously understandable. Draw the faithful into one faith, let's not let it slide into a myriad of interpritations, one God and one religion.
Mr. Dictator
A Chain-Smoking Fox
CivGeneral said:
hmm...so what's the church's stance on grammar? EDIT: nvm, i read it wrong
how can you refuse to think for yourself? you dont need to be spoonfed food but you need it in church?
i'm very glad us protestants had the common sense to distance ourselves from you guys if thats how you think.
Zarn
Le Républicain Catholique
Mr. Dictator said:hmm...so what's the church's stance on grammar? EDIT: nvm, i read it wrong
how can you refuse to think for yourself? you dont need to be spoonfed food but you need it in church?
i'm very glad us protestants had the common sense to distance ourselves from you guys if thats how you think.
So you don't read my posts?
I made them just for you.
Gilder said:
I never said that I was open-minded. I am quite closed-minded to tell the truth. But I was just pointing out the hypocrisy in many of the arguments and statements that have been posted here.
@Sidhe: Thank you for agreeing with some of my statements
Perfection
The Great Head.
Most the time they can have criticismsCivGeneral said:
Why not?CivGeneral said:
pholkhero
Deviant Mind
makes me think of hte Monty Python "Meaning of Life" in reference to the Protestant couple discussing using condomsMr. Dictator said:
i'm sorry, but the church is an organization of man, and the current catholic church has very little to do with the beliefs of Jesus of Nazareth
Zarn said:
I HATE how the word "liberal" now denominates a certain political party to most people
As far as I'm concerned...
lib‧er‧al 
adjective
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal - THAT is the meaning of liberal I know
Greek Stud
Prince
I don't agree that Marriage is a Human/Natural Right, it is clearly a Religious/Spiritual Right and that's what causes confusion between whether it could be governed by law.
Human rights and natural rights would cover the choice to have a spiritual belief of union between two peoples. But marriage is not natural and certainly many people have lived without getting married. Therefore it is most definitely a law about the right to choose.
Religious rights and spiritual rights is that of the organizational church. Even the Patriarch of Constantinople in Byzantine Greece made cannonic laws for Orthodox Christians and kingdoms within the Empire had the right to judge on how they would carry out cannons in the Orthodox Church. But for all you people that hate the organization of the Church, the Orthodox Church did not judge anyone Orthodox or not. It simply presented the moral law and the Empire used theology as a moral standard. People who have no religious believes are spiritual and the Orthodox Church presented the essence of that in allowing equal rights for non-Christians and women. Even if Christian moral law condemns divorce, polygamy and homosexuality it also clearly states that only the voice of God can judge His own people. That is very easy to confuse because only God can choose moral rights and wrong but the Church created moral laws that tell you how to live a moral Christian life. The aim of cannonic law is not discriminative, it is a guide to present you with a path towards the easiest way to avoid hardships and focus on an afterlife with God. In Byzantine times it wasn't even about homosexuality that it was banned, it was because the act glorifies sex and lust with an alternate form of love. Marriage is a union that produced natural offspring through sex and love but lust is then a choice because the act also has the effect of making the woman pregnant. Women are not suppressed because they are the ones who become pregnant. And not all homosexual relationship consist of lust, but the reality is that sex was just for sex not for child bearing. And its hard in our world to say that well all people who have sex do it out of lust, but during a time when the whole world was much more spiritual, a loving relationship could easily consist of love and loyality without it being dependent on lust. Today people say, I will only marry someone if they are good during sex. This is not something that come to mind in the spiritual world, in fact it was closer to taboo and in the Greek world it was something of the Pagan past when sex was an offering towards the divine whereas Christian philosophy leans towards sex being a gift of being married and the gift of being able to produce children.
I will not argue who is right or wrong. I am obviously Old School Orthodox Christian so it still annoys me when people depend upon divorce so carelessly. But another moral Christian law is that God judges and Humans have free will in spiritual beliefs and choices. Allowing divorce is a moral choice and freedom that has allowed for the spiritual choice of people to choose a life of homosexual union which is just as free of a choice of polygamy whether you are Muslim or live in Utah. These are choices that each individual have a right to choose for their own life on one side and on the other side each group of individuals have a right to choose for their culture and society. Boths sides should have equal rights in this choice. It effects those who decide to marry someone of the same sex and those who do not want a society that accepts a marriage of the same sex. It is both of our rights to choose what defines American culture. I don't agree with divorce, but I don't think I can judge someone for having a divorce. I don't hate people because they want to marry the same sex nor do I hate people who divorce each other.
I wrote a college paper in my Cultural Anthropology class about this very arguement allowing for the status of homosexual marriages to be more legally accurate. Civil Union seems like something that can easily transgress into polygamous marriage so I offered more Greek words for the English language. Androgamy for male union and Gynegamy for female union. I could not think of anything for transgender and other situations that I apologize that I have no knowledge about.
Yes I am Republican, otherwise I couldn't call myself a Byzantine.
Human rights and natural rights would cover the choice to have a spiritual belief of union between two peoples. But marriage is not natural and certainly many people have lived without getting married. Therefore it is most definitely a law about the right to choose.
Religious rights and spiritual rights is that of the organizational church. Even the Patriarch of Constantinople in Byzantine Greece made cannonic laws for Orthodox Christians and kingdoms within the Empire had the right to judge on how they would carry out cannons in the Orthodox Church. But for all you people that hate the organization of the Church, the Orthodox Church did not judge anyone Orthodox or not. It simply presented the moral law and the Empire used theology as a moral standard. People who have no religious believes are spiritual and the Orthodox Church presented the essence of that in allowing equal rights for non-Christians and women. Even if Christian moral law condemns divorce, polygamy and homosexuality it also clearly states that only the voice of God can judge His own people. That is very easy to confuse because only God can choose moral rights and wrong but the Church created moral laws that tell you how to live a moral Christian life. The aim of cannonic law is not discriminative, it is a guide to present you with a path towards the easiest way to avoid hardships and focus on an afterlife with God. In Byzantine times it wasn't even about homosexuality that it was banned, it was because the act glorifies sex and lust with an alternate form of love. Marriage is a union that produced natural offspring through sex and love but lust is then a choice because the act also has the effect of making the woman pregnant. Women are not suppressed because they are the ones who become pregnant. And not all homosexual relationship consist of lust, but the reality is that sex was just for sex not for child bearing. And its hard in our world to say that well all people who have sex do it out of lust, but during a time when the whole world was much more spiritual, a loving relationship could easily consist of love and loyality without it being dependent on lust. Today people say, I will only marry someone if they are good during sex. This is not something that come to mind in the spiritual world, in fact it was closer to taboo and in the Greek world it was something of the Pagan past when sex was an offering towards the divine whereas Christian philosophy leans towards sex being a gift of being married and the gift of being able to produce children.
I will not argue who is right or wrong. I am obviously Old School Orthodox Christian so it still annoys me when people depend upon divorce so carelessly. But another moral Christian law is that God judges and Humans have free will in spiritual beliefs and choices. Allowing divorce is a moral choice and freedom that has allowed for the spiritual choice of people to choose a life of homosexual union which is just as free of a choice of polygamy whether you are Muslim or live in Utah. These are choices that each individual have a right to choose for their own life on one side and on the other side each group of individuals have a right to choose for their culture and society. Boths sides should have equal rights in this choice. It effects those who decide to marry someone of the same sex and those who do not want a society that accepts a marriage of the same sex. It is both of our rights to choose what defines American culture. I don't agree with divorce, but I don't think I can judge someone for having a divorce. I don't hate people because they want to marry the same sex nor do I hate people who divorce each other.
I wrote a college paper in my Cultural Anthropology class about this very arguement allowing for the status of homosexual marriages to be more legally accurate. Civil Union seems like something that can easily transgress into polygamous marriage so I offered more Greek words for the English language. Androgamy for male union and Gynegamy for female union. I could not think of anything for transgender and other situations that I apologize that I have no knowledge about.
Yes I am Republican, otherwise I couldn't call myself a Byzantine.
CurtSibling said:
Actually, Cylons have been doing a pretty good job of adapting, of late.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
CivGeneral said:
Then you are a mindless pawn incapable of rational thought.
But I know you're not, so what you said can't be right
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Back on topic.
A question for those who dont believe "majority rules". If that is the case then why let 7 people in a court make a decision for the millions of people who live in a state?
I for one, would much prefer the opinion/will of the majority, than the opinion of 7 people who I may not agree with at all. Thats precisely why so many states have state constitutional votes on this very subject - they dont want 7 people dictating the definition of marriage for the entire state.
Also, I want to ask why was the Defense of Marriage act not referred to in any way by the state supreme court? Does it not matter? I for one, hope that the NJ legislature signs into law some Bill to clarify marriage as a union of a man and a woman, or put such a thing into a statewide vote for all to voice their opinion like many states have been doing across the USA.
A question for those who dont believe "majority rules". If that is the case then why let 7 people in a court make a decision for the millions of people who live in a state?
I for one, would much prefer the opinion/will of the majority, than the opinion of 7 people who I may not agree with at all. Thats precisely why so many states have state constitutional votes on this very subject - they dont want 7 people dictating the definition of marriage for the entire state.
Also, I want to ask why was the Defense of Marriage act not referred to in any way by the state supreme court? Does it not matter? I for one, hope that the NJ legislature signs into law some Bill to clarify marriage as a union of a man and a woman, or put such a thing into a statewide vote for all to voice their opinion like many states have been doing across the USA.
Similar threads
- Poll
