Activists Want to Pass Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment to Stop Satan"s Attack on Marriage

I want a Gay Marriage Equality act to stop the attacks of Jesus on marriage...

because he wants “to tear down the idea of Christ’s unconditional love for us.”

Anyone else find this oxymoronic. The contradiction from the christian fanaticism is the real threat to a harmonious society.

We the corporations?

I want a Gay Marriage Equality act to stop the attacks of Jesus on marriage..

I'm sure they would once 'christians' keep their opinion and myth out of government and the lives of others.

"Gays want to marry... Could it be SATAN?!"

Why would Satan use gays to destroy marriage? Gays love marriage. They make great wedding planners. They love helping people get married. They love marriage. They want to be married. If all the gay GOP legislators got gay married, we won't have some many of them having to say, "I am not gay. I have never been gay. I love my wife."

Using gays to destroy marriage is like electing Teabaggers to pass jobs bill.

Oh great.......let's blame the poor economy on gay marriage. How stupid.

I see Satan...and it's not in the proponents of gay marriage.

These people are just against love because they can't experience it.

I'm pretty sure Satan's attack on marriage includes d*ckweeds who send divorce papers to their wife in the hospital and later on, are paying for a woman, not their wife,'s rent while impeaching the President before preaching to the rest of us about a return to traditional values !!

xrayspex,

Yep, Newt, I think satan possed his body.

Parshall said that marriage equality efforts come from "the Father of Lies and the Accuser of the Brethren," two names for Satan (John 8:44; Revelation 12:10). She said that Satan has marriage in his "crosshairs" because he wants "to tear down the idea of Christ's unconditional love for us."

"The Father of Lies and the Accuser of the Brethren". . . Hmm, you know, that's actually quite a good description of Pat Robertson.

So Satan wants to destroy the institution of marriage by means of marriage equality legislation, and God—in addition to sending tsunamis and innumerable other natural disasters in order to punish nations for their alleged 'transgressions'—sent the spring tornadoes to Joplin and other areas of the Midwest and the recent earthquake and Hurricane Irene as indications of His displeasure with the advocacy of marriage equality, according to Robertson, Parshall, and the rest of these wackos . . .

Riddle me this, Batman: If God is all-powerful, why doesn't He simply destroy Satan, the archnemesis who is supposedly the source of this horrific temptation, instead of destroying innocent men, women and children who should be the beneficiaries of His "unconditional love"? Reminds me of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Yep, Newt, I think satan possed his body.

Yep, Newt, I think satan posses his body.

There, fixed that for 'ya.

These brainless idiots blame everything on SATAN.

Frankly, if there is such a being, (which I doubt), I doubt if s/he gives a rat's ass about the petty crap these morons care about.

...which works for them in some parts of the Country.

Yeah, and which part of the country? It is the same part that used God and the Bible to support slavery and Jim Crowe laws.

"The father of lies"? I thought that position was already occupied by Pat Robertson. And how can a fictional character like Satan be attacking anything? Satan is just a figment of their own imaginations, an excuse for their failure as human beings. They attribute everything they don't like to the workings of this imaginary being.

Lets see....

Gay Marriage is an attack on Traditional Marriage.

It's the first institution that God created in a place of perfection, it's emblematic of the love that Christ the bridegroom has for his bride

So this would be the biblical tradition of marriage, those traditions from when Jesus walked the earth. When Polygamy was common and it was traditional to purchase a wife from her father. Because you know this one man one woman marriage for the sake of love thing is from pretty recent history. Even if you think that history is only 6000 years long.

Like the ads Isee on the NYC subway that states:

"If you don't like gay marriage, DON't GAY MARRY."

It is really that simple.

Reliant,

"When Polygamy was common and it was traditional to purchase a wife from her father. Because you know this one man one woman marriage for the sake of love thing is from pretty recent history."

That is so very true! Abraham and all of the Old Testament patriarchs were polygamists, and yet Christians like to point to the story of Adam and Eve as the model for human heterosexual, monogamist marriage instituted by God. Strange it is how all these Old Testament figures were so beloved of God when they were all, without exception, violating His law for marriage.

Religious bigots, religious morons, religious imbeciles, all and all, totally useless ugly intolerant horribly stupid people.

Tax ignorance and fight bigotry.

Anyone else find [the idea that Satan wants "to tear down the idea of Christ’s unconditional love for us"] oxymoronic?

yeah, seems like something that, i dunno, the "Father of Lies" might claim. ;)

Riddle me this, Batman: If God is all-powerful, why doesn't He simply destroy Satan, the archnemesis who is supposedly the source of this horrific temptation, instead of destroying innocent men, women and children who should be the beneficiaries of His "unconditional love"?

Maybe it is their god just exhibiting "free will"; or, their god knows if satan is gone, then there is not much need for a god!

Those who endorse such moronic ideas are NOT CHhriostians. Jesus didn't say one way or the other about marriage . He didn't even endorse it AT ALL! He did, however, condemn divorce! And we all know plenty of the reTHUGliCONs are big on DIVORCES!

Like I said they are NOT Christians...the don't practicve the lessons of Jesus. They muct be more like the Jews. They do blather about the old testement and NOT the New!

And all you followers of the old testement......who DID Adam and Eve's sons marry? WE know from the story of Lott, they did practice incest and it was even encouraged!

allenI think your fear and phobia is getting the better of you!!!!! For one thing the conservatives or the religious or the right wingers or who-ever else scares you aren't doing any painting of the democrat party, they are merely exercising their constitutional right of defending the sanctity of marriage. You libs generally cry "Constitutional rights" about everything, oh, I mean when it serves your purpose. And secondly, politics has nothing to do with covenantal marriage, marriage is a covenant formed by God between a man and woman and Himself. The peice of paper a couple recieves from the goverment when they marry is only for the states sake, it doesn't make the couple joined as man and wife, that only happens thru the Sacrament of marriage. Marriage is a Sacramental covenant given to mankind by God, it is only through Him that the joining takes place. Whether you agree or not doesn't matter, it is what it is.

scott.....you want to practice religion......go right ahead. I don't have a proble with it. HOWEVER, if you want to force YOUR narrow views on the rest of us, THAT I have an issue with. Jesus didn't care one way or the other. He did condemn divorce. Many (r)s practice divorce. They are NOT Christians and that is ONE small part of it. Most of them don't practice the rest of Jesus's lessons either!

scott,

"marriage is a covenant formed by God between a man and woman and Himself."

That is a matter of religious faith; not fact, and you are certainly entitled to believe it. I would never think of denying you that right. But others also have the right not to believe it. For them marriage is a civil commitment between two persons, and, as a civil commitment it is very much a matter of politics.

they are merely exercising their constitutional right of defending the sanctity of marriage.

I will agree to their "constitutional right" to defend whatever they want, I just don't think that right should stop others who just want the same thing. If they feel so strongly about the sanctity of marriage (one man and one woman), shouldn't they also show how some of these marriages end in divorce, incest, child molestion? Shouldn't they also explain that what they are fighting for, in the main reason for the gay population?

All I'm doing is asking questions here...everyone has the right fight for what they believe in, I just think that the whole picture should be shown. No, gay marriages are not something that people can handle, but then people have learned to live with a lot of things. Battered wives, children, no one seems to want to get involved in things like this. And these are the product of traditional marriage.

Just wondering.

Everytime I think of bible-thumpers I get a picture of the "Bible Fruit" episode of Aqua Teen Hunger Force.

"In Jeeeezz-uuuss name we pray."

ZenFreedom,

"In Jeeeezz-uuuss name we pray."

I've always heard it pronounced, "In Juh-eeeezz-uuuss name we pray". It must be a dialectical difference between preachers.

You'd have to see the "Bible Fruit" episode to get it in it's great context, lol. Typing it does not do it justice. I was in Afghanistan when I saw that episode and I laughed uncontrollably for three straight days, lol.

ZenFreedom,

Unfortunately, I've never seen that movie. When did it come out? Maybe I could get it on DVD.

Aqua Teen Hunger Force is a TV show on Adult Swim. This episode was hilarious.

Marriage is a Sacramental covenant given to mankind by God,

Marriage is a civil institution which predates religion. You god has nothing to do with marriage.

it is only through Him that the joining takes place.

Sorry, but your god is irrelevant to marriage. If someone gets married in a religious ceremony, that does not make that marriage any more valid than a civil marriage. A religious cerwemony is ceremonial by nature and thusly, has no legal weight.

Whether you agree or not doesn't matter, it is what it is.

That is only what you believe, not what actually is. God doesn't make nor have any place in our laws. And that is what actually is!

are merely exercising their constitutional right of defending the sanctity of marriage.

But they do not have the right to push their belifs onto others or try to make their beliefs public policy. That would be unconstitutional. Besides, who are you to define the "sanctity of marriage?"

You libs generally cry "Constitutional rights" about everything, oh, I mean when it serves your purpose.

And you want to ignore the Constitution when it serves yours!

And secondly, politics has nothing to do with covenantal marriage, marriage is a covenant formed by God between a man and woman and Himself.

Really. Try getting married without a state issued marriage license then. Bottom line, marriage in this country is a civil and legal function. I don't need your god tro be married, nor does not having a religious ceremony make someone's marriage any less valid or legal than yours.

The peice of paper a couple recieves from the goverment when they marry is only for the states sake, it doesn't make the couple joined as man and wife, that only happens thru the Sacrament of marriage.

Some people couldn't care less about your "sacrament." As far as some are concerned, that "piece of paper" is what matters and how dare you say someone's marriage is somehow less valid than yours if they aren't married in a religious ceremony. Again, your god is irrelevant, (not to mention non-existant).

they are merely exercising their constitutional right of defending the sanctity of marriage.

What does that even mean?

How is denying people the right to marry defend the 'sanctity of marriage'.

If you want to defend the sanctity of marriage, perhaps you should be working to outlaw divorce.

ZenFreedom,

Oh, I see. I thought it was a movie. I guess I'm just out of luck then!

Whether you agree or not doesn't matter, it is what it is.

Whether a person agrees with your stated position, scott, is ALL that matters. Your entire definition and position is based on being a Christian. If a person is not one, your entire argument is null and void.

2 hypotheticals to throw at you: 1) a man and woman have a ceremony in church, recognizing their commitment to one another, but no license 2) a man and woman get a license, have it signed by a judge, and skip any ceremony of any sort. Now, which of those couples is married?

Some people couldn't care less about your "sacrament." As far as some are concerned, that "piece of paper" is what matters and how dare you say someone's marriage is somehow less valid than yours if they aren't married in a religious ceremony. Again, your god is irrelevant, (not to mention non-existant).

Yeah...amazing how those who scream the loudest for respect for their own beliefs are the first to utterly disrespect the beliefs (or non-beliefs) of everyone else.

This is history repeating itself. The exact same arguments were made against biracial marriage.

This is a link to a document that compares the two arguments point for point:

http://www.equalitygiving.org/files/Marriage-Equality-Same-Sex-Lesbian-Gay-Marriage/Arguments_Against_Interracial_Marriage_and_Equal_Marriage.pdf

Biracial marriages have been legal on the federal level since 1967 and I haven't seen the decline of the "traditional marriage" as a result of its legalization.

Why can't we learn from history??? Legalizing biracial marriage did not bring about the downfall of marriage and neither will gay marriage.

Just another group of religious morons running rampant in America.

End all religion and we wouldn't have all this hate and bigotry in the world.

Religion is BS!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

This is history repeating itself. The exact same arguments were made against biracial marriage.

There is a good reason for that, it is the same (aging) bigots now as then and their uneducated and unwashed bigot offspring.

The good news is that the demographics and polls all show the same thing. They are old and they are dying out. Younger Americans overwhelmingly favor allowing gay marriage. In 10 years gay marriage will be a non-issue.

The one thing we learn from history is that no one learns from history...

That is part of the problem with the right, they don't believe in learning. They believe in their book, creationism, a whole laundry list of laughably naive concepts entirely at odds with reality.

They cling to authority rather than trying to learn and figure it out for themselves. They despise logic because it exposes the weak and vacuous basis of their beliefs. There is a reason that only 5% of scientists identify themselves as Republicans (probably even fewer today).

I'm 67 and grew up with gay friends. My family accepted their birthright as our own, and equal in all ways. When The Women's Liberation movement came around I thought perhaps gays would be included in the equal rights movement, but alas that didn't come to be. For those of us accepting all as a part of us Same-sex marriage in a no brainer as it should have been in place all along.

Fundamental religious zealots need someone to hate so if they don't have gays and other minorities to bash and malign who will they hate, each other? That would work for me.

It seems that the issue is generally about where there authority for marriage comes from. For the most part you either believe it is from God or it is simply a right granted by virtue of being alive. Of course, there seem to be a few who are managing to straddle both, but it seems most are either/or.

I'm in the God camp. God created marriage for a man and a woman. In my view, same sex couples can't get married, regardless what the piece of paper says. I say "my view" but that is my view because I believe that is what God intended.

However, I don't see a mandate in the bible that insists that I am obligated to push my beliefs on anyone else. It disturbs me to see my "bretheren" attempting to do so. No constitution, national or state, should force religious laws on anyone. It is impossible to force anyone to God and attempting to do so seems much, much worse than what they claim to be fighting against. God's laws are not for those who don't believe in Him. They belong to those of us who do. Our obligation is to submit ourselves to God, not to force others to.

Drakkonis,

I was beginning to wonder where all the real Christians had gone. I respect your belief, your strength of character, and your clarity of thought.

God's laws are not for those who don't believe in Him. They belong to those of us who do. Our obligation is to submit ourselves to God, not to force others to.

Precisely. If your faith tells you it's not right to do something then, by all means, don't do it. But don't force people of other faiths or no faith to adhere to your faith's restrictions. There are God's laws (for those who believe) and there are man's laws. They can be the same (murder, for example), but do not have to be.

Does anybody know where the doctrin of "separation of Church and State" is? I suspect it is being hidden by the ultra-conservative Christian right in hopes that it is forgotten.

I am a married, heterosexual person who believes in God and I have NEVER felt my status as any of those things threatened by the prospect of legalized gay marriage. I fear the zealots more than anything else because they are attempting to blur the line between Church and State. That is a true threat to our Constitution.

Does anybody know where the doctrin of "separation of Church and State" is?

Right where it's always been-in the 1st Amendment.

I suspect it is being hidden by the ultra-conservative Christian right in hopes that it is forgotten.

I thought they usually ignore it or try to downplay it.

I fear the zealots more than anything else because they are attempting to blur the line between Church and State. That is a true threat to our Constitution.

Agreed!

Hi, Gordy327

Right where it's always been-in the 1st Amendment.

Um...I know...I asked the question in a tongue-in-cheek manner hoping to get a response. I enjoyed yours! I wish the ultra-conservatives would read the Constitution with as much attention and respect as they read the Bible.

That is the problem. They believe THEIR interpretation of THEIR version of the Bible is more important than the Constitution.

The only thing they object to about Iran's government is that it follows the WRONG book.

Pharisees were ultra-religious, and ultra-conservative.

Jesus was liberal who challenged their power.

It's funny how the more things change, the more they stay the same.

I enjoyed yours!

Thank you. I'm glad you liked it. :)

I wish the ultra-conservatives would read the Constitution with as much attention and respect as they read the Bible.

I find these are the same types who will say that the "separation of church and state" is not mentioned [explicitly] in the Constitution." Of course, they also ignore all relevant SCOTUS cases and works of the Founding Fathers alluding to separation.

They believe THEIR interpretation of THEIR version of the Bible is more important than the Constitution.

They also think their interpretation of the constitution is the correct one: "Separation prevents the government from interfering in the church, not the other way around."

Talk about a misinformed or myopic view of the Constitution.

Z1P2,

Pharisees were ultra-religious, and ultra-conservative.
Jesus was liberal who challenged their power.
It's funny how the more things change, the more they stay the same.

I don't know how accurate that is. For example, in Mark 7/Matt 15 The pharisees had instituted a tradition of washing their hands, cookware, and containers. A policy of public sanitation, you could say. Then they critiqued Jesus for not going along with the sanitation policy, and he responded by accusing them of following the policies of men and not the policies of God. He defended this by pointing out that instead of killing children that do not honor their father and mother, as God commands, the pharisees instead set up a spiritual devotion debt to God to avoid punishing them.

So Jesus called the Pharisees too liberal, and showed it by pointing out they are not killing people as God commands.

Mark 7:1-13, Matthew 15:1-10

(I hope I didn't distract from the point or upset any liberal Christians. if so I apologize)

kakaiser,

As usual, you got it wrong.

Drakkonis:

Per 1.40, VERY well put, and we need a LOT more ppl with that mentality. I appreciate your views when couched like that.

Drakkonis,

As usual, anyone that didn't read it through your particular shade of rose colored glasses got it wrong.

"Some people couldn't care less about your "sacrament." As far as some are concerned, that "piece of paper" is what matters and how dare you say someones marriage is somehow less valid than yours if they aren't married in a religious ceremony. Again, your god is irrelevant, (not to mention non-existant)."......When I said whether you agree or not it doesn't matter, it is what it is, my point is that you may not believe in gravity because it can't be seen or smelled or touched it is only experienced by what a teacher told us in science class. Your belief stops abruptly the first time you try and walk off a rooftop while exclaiming (gravity can't exist because I don't believe in it) God is real whether you believe or not, God doesn't ask for our opinions. He is what He is and it is what it is!!!!

Half of all "straight" marriages end in divorce. (USCensus)

One-third of all female homicide victims are killed by their husbands. (NCADV)

1,300,000 women are the victim of domestic assault each year. (NCADV)

... and don't even get me started on the Mormon sects and their polygamy and 12 y/o brides.

So... Before any straight person even thinks about opening their pie-hole to speak out against gay marriage they first need to CLEAN UP THEIR OWN BACK YARD.

(ps: why does Jesus hate marriage so much?)

Drakkonis wrote:

God's laws are not for those who don't believe in Him. They belong to those of us who do. Our obligation is to submit ourselves to God, not to force others to.

As a life-long agnostic, I've got to give you an honest "thank you."

I've always been somewhat flabbergasted by folks who think their deity's rules apply to anyone but themselves.

you may not believe in gravity because it can't be seen or smelled or touched it is only experienced by what a teacher told us in science class...God is real whether you believe or not

No, belief in gravity comes from seeing its effects on objects - including, yes, us stepping off a cliff - and scientific reasoning. We may not be able to directly observe gravity, since it is a force and not a physical object, but its existence is provable. The existence of God, on the other hand, whether referencing the specific Christian deity or more generalized usage to refer to any religion's Supreme Being, relies solely on an individual's faith and is not provable. That is not meant to be a slight on faith, I respect people's right to their belief. The problem comes when, like you seem to be doing, people mistake faith for knowledge and think that their belief is the only correct one for every single other person on the Earth. I think scott could learn much from Drakkonis.

"relies solely on an individuals faith and is not provable."....that's bo-log-na I have witnessed miarcles that that could only have been done by God. My ex wife had her shoulder healed in front of a crowd of people. She was in an accident and her arm was left in-operable. She had no movement beyond 6 inches from her hip with no possibility of improvement, even with time. She was prayed over and immediately had full use and mobility, and does to this day, 10 years later. So your agnostic and atheistic diatribes and fearful rejection of God is absurd. This is one example I can give of the Holy Spirits movement here on Earth.

My ex wife had her shoulder healed in front of a crowd of people

Why couldn't that have been done by a fairy?

fairy's don't come out from Neverland silly????

I have witnessed miarcles that that could only have been done by God

No, you have witnessed things that you are unable to explain, and therefore attribute to God. I do not question that something remarkable happened to your wife, and I'm happy for you both. But, as dakaiser somewhat sarcastically yet correctly pointed out, that does not prove it was God.

I'll bet "God" if there is one allows us to perform our own miracles. He/She is just sitting back and watching how we justify our existence. On the other hand we are humans and can believe and do what we want without repercussions if God isn't our thing. No one gets ownership for "miracles".

When I said whether you agree or not it doesn't matter

Actually, it does. You're making baseless assumptions with no backing and otherwise based on your belief. That's hardly a valid point.

my point is that you may not believe in gravity because it can't be seen or smelled or touched it is only experienced by what a teacher told us in science class.

A poor point. Gravity can be observed and quantified. Your god cannot.

God is real whether you believe or not,

That's nice. Prove it!

He is what He is and it is what it is!!!!

Your belief doesn't equal fact.

I have witnessed miarcles that that could only have been done by God.

In other words, you may have seen things you cannot logically explain so you go with the "god did it" explanation. That's an intellectual cop-out.

My ex wife had her shoulder healed in front of a crowd of people.

Where's your scientific collaboration to support that claim?

So your agnostic and atheistic diatribes and fearful rejection of God is absurd.

Your claims for a god is absurd. You assume it's god and don't even bother to consider any other possibility.

This is one example I can give of the Holy Spirits movement here on Earth.

A subjective and anecdotal one at that.

fairy's don't come out from Neverland silly????

I guess you never saw Tinkerbell?

Dennis270,

The problem comes when, like you seem to be doing, people mistake faith for knowledge and think that their belief is the only correct one for every single other person on the Earth. I think scott could learn much from Drakkonis.

Um, thanks for the props but I have a lot in common with Scott. Like him, I believe Jesus Christ is the only correct "belief" for every single other person on earth. I'm just not going to try to make you believe it. It isn't my job. I can tell you about my savior if you want to hear it, but that's about as far as my responsibility in the matter goes. God calls people to Him. He may use me in that calling but I can't "lead" someone to God. God does that. I'm merely a servant.

Right now, Scott is catching some flack for his belief in the existence of God. As usual, his opponents are claiming the "no scientific proof" thing. While I understand perfectly what he's trying to say with his gravity example, the people he is talking to aren't getting what he really means, which is simply that if God exists, proof or no proof makes no difference. If God really has the attributes described to Him in the bible, a lack of scientific proof is a non-issue. That is simply man telling God what He must do to be credible. While men might think so I have it on good authority that God doesn't. He plays by His own rules, not ours.

As for mistaking faith for knowledge, that's kinda tricky. It has been my experience that with faith comes knowledge of God. As far as I understand the term "faith" in my religion, it means to trust God in things we have no proof of or don't understand. This doesn't mean God intended us to operate our lives without knowledge. The bible speaks of the spiritually blind and for most of my life, that has described me. Only recently have I made a serious attempt at being a follower of Christ. I still am pretty blind. Yet even as new as I am to this, I can only ask you to believe me when I say how new the world looks to me now. How different it seems. Not only the world, but my own self.

The difference is the knowledge of God, and I'm only just getting started. I sorta hate to make the comparison, but it's a pretty good one. It's like the movie The Matrix. Neo takes the red pill on faith in someone he doen't really know because something is telling him there's more to the world than what he sees. It's like that. I'm learning to see the world the way it was supposed to be. I'm learning to see the way I was supposed to be, but am not.

Anyway, I've probably gone off track here somewhere, but I didn't want people thinking Scott is some bad apple or something. He's not. He's trying to do the right thing as he sees it, just as every one else here believes they are doing. What I wonder, though, is if everyone here is convinced they are doing the right thing, why can't they speak as if they understand the other guy is trying to do the right thing? (actually, I think there are a few here who know they aren't doing the right thing but that's me)

Um, thanks for the props but I have a lot in common with Scott

I know.

I'm just not going to try to make you believe it. It isn't my job

And that makes all the difference in the world. I do not, or at least try not to, condemn or begrudge anyone their faith or belief if that faith leads them to a good life. I take issue when someone tries to force others to adhere to their faith through secular legislation when not adhering to that faith does no harm. I'm not even in the category of strict atheist and have been known to defend people of faith from time to time around the 'Vine when they get piled on unnecessarily - I don't know what the hell I am, really. But I know what I'm not and what I'll never be and it's worked well for me so far. But I also do not expect anyone but me to live by my beliefs, and you do not seem to either. scott seems to, unless I'm misinterpreting something.

I believe Jesus Christ is the only correct "belief" for every single other person on earth.

I'm sure there are other who believe their deity/religion is the "correct" one too. So many religions and deities to choose from.

Right now, Scott is catching some flack for his belief in the existence of God.

No. He's catching flak because he makes extraordinary (and arrogant) claims as factual, but doesn't back them up. No one really cares if he believes in god or not.

If God really has the attributes described to Him in the bible, a lack of scientific proof is a non-issue.

A Huge "if." But that is still based on the initial assumption that there is a god to begin with. That has not been established.

As usual, his opponents are claiming the "no scientific proof" thing.

That's right, and rightfully so. Why should anyone accept his beliefs or claims at face value?

I can only ask you to believe me when I say how new the world looks to me now. How different it seems. Not only the world, but my own self.

Just another example of mind over matter or personal introspection. It does nothing to establish the validity of god's existance.

Neo takes the red pill on faith in someone he doen't really know because something is telling him there's more to the world than what he sees.

"I know what you're thinking. Why oh why didn't I take the blue pill?" Cypher to Neo

but I didn't want people thinking Scott is some bad apple or something. He's not.

No one implied otherwise.

Drakkonis,

"Right now, Scott is catching some flack for his belief in the existence of God."

I noticed, too, that Scott is catching some flack for his belief in the existence of God, but I think that is what he can expect when posting on a blog with a group of people who do not share his beliefs. He is like Daniel in the lion's den, to recall a Biblical story, and the rest of the posters are the lions; only in this version of the story , God does not step in to rescue him, and he gets eaten by the lions. Still, I think it is very noble of you to come to his defense, and all the more so knowing that you are liable to meet the same fate. May your God be with you!

Mickey,

Thanks, but I'm not too worried about it. I never try to prove God exists. He doesn't ever try to prove He exists. I can't think of anything more demeaning for Him to do. Since He doesn't, I don't, either.

Mostly when dealing with the existence/non-existence issue, I just point out how silly it is to say God doesn't exist because there is no scientific proof of His existence. As if, when dealing with the question of God's existence, it is axiomatic that God would be subject to science rather than the other way around.

I know God exists. Others know He doesn't. Both postions are based on faith alone since neither can produce "scientific proof" one way or the other. Yet the God deniers can't seem to see this. They feel their belief is based in science, when really, it isn't since science can't even address the issue in the first place. Go figure.

My dad told me that he wasn't sure and didn't care if there was or was not a God, he would just be the best he could be on his own and wait to find out.

Drakkonis,

"Mostly when dealing with the existence/non-existence issue, I just point out how silly it is to say God doesn't exist because there is no scientific proof of His existence. As if, when dealing with the question of God's existence, it is axiomatic that God would be subject to science rather than the other way around."

That's and excellent point. It all depends on your world view, and what you are willing to allow into it as assumptions. Science is based on the philosophies of materialism, naturalism, and empiricism. Materialism is the philosophy that nothing exists except matter and energy. Empiricism is the philosophy that nothing exists except what we can perceive with our five senses, and naturalism is the the philosophy that nature can be explained in terms of itself alone and therefore there is no need to invoke anything outside nature itself for an explanation. Many who base their whole lives on science do not understand that science itself is based and these philosophies that have become commonplace in the modern world and is therefore limited by the philosophical assumptions on which it is based. Religion, on the other hand, has a broader world view because it assumes the existence of a supernatural world beyond the natural world and that is itself the source of the natural world. Both Aristotle and Saint Thomas Aquinas offered logical proofs for the existence of God, but the naturally minded never find such proofs convincing. That is why faith is ultimately required, unless you accept the assumption of mysticism. Mysticism is experiential religion based on the assumption that God can be experienced through direct union of the soul with God. It has many forms and appears in many religions, especially Hinduism and Buddhism, but it is also found in Christianity. Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox Catholicism have very strong mystical strains, but it is also found in Protestantism in the writings of such men as Jacob Boehmen and William Law. At any rate, the scientific world view is a very narrow and limited one, but is has probably become the dominant world view in modern times because of its practical applications in the form of technology and engineering, which brings up another philosophy that science is based on: pragmatism. Pragmatism is the philosophy that truth is what works. In other words, if it works, it must be true. Anyway, I had better shut up, because I could go on forever with this. I was just being tongue in cheek with my story of Daniel in the lion's den, but that is why when you try to argue with unbelievers, it is usually a fruitless undertaking because of the two entirely different world views involved. "East is East and West is West, and ne'er the twain shall meet", as Rudyard Kipling put it.

Mickey,

Wow! Thanks for a truly awsome post. I've never seen the issue put so well or succinctly before. I'm going to copy it, save it, and with your permission, refer to it in the future.

I was just being tongue in cheek with my story of Daniel in the lion's den, but that is why when you try to argue with unbelievers, it is usually a fruitless undertaking because of the two entirely different world views involved. "East is East and West is West, and ne'er the twain shall meet", as Rudyard Kipling put it.

True enough. Yet it isn't exaclty fruitless because I learn so much in here. Questions asked that make me work at learning more about my faith. Or I run into excellent posts like yours that are worth all the trouble. Further, I know I'm not going to change minds in here, but I don't know that someday God will and something I've said may strike a chord at that time. Who knows how God may use it? In any case, this interaction always makes me think harder than I might have otherwise.

Drakkonis,

"this interaction always makes me think harder than I might have otherwise."

Thanks for the compliment. You are welcome to use anything from my post you like. I majored in philosophy in college, so I think a lot about these sorts of things, and I believe thinking is always a good thing. Unfortunately, those who make the scientific world view their entire world view only too often do not think deeply enough about the philosophical assumptions that science is based on and the limitations of science.

do not think deeply enough about the philosophical assumptions that science is based on and the limitations of science

Science does not limit itself to just philosophy or the philosophy of science, which is, most will argue distinct from one another. The philosophical assumption that religion exists because god exist is a false theory. If it were true, we would not have had the multiple gods(religions) that exist(ed) in the many human societies that have and presently exist. If is was true which god is to be worshiped?

Religion and science has been at battle since the Renaissance. It seems that science has proved it self over and over...much to the chagrinof catholic church. Because of science we now know planets are oval and orbit the sun... We know humans(homo sapien sapien) were not the first hominids on earth but the latest version...we know earth is older than what the bible suggests. We've have made gains in the knowledge of ourselves, our planet and elsewhere. Little of this had to do with philosophical assumptions.

buttzie,

"Little of this had to do with philosophical assumptions."

It all has to do with philosophical assumptions, but most people do not realize that. No one is putting down science. You are right in saying that we have learned many things through science, but science also has its limits. That is what I was talking about. If you assume to begin with that there is nothing beyond the material universe and that the material universe can be entirely explained in terms of itself, then how can you even begin to consider whether or not there is anything beyond the material universe? The answer is that you cannot. You have limited yourself to the material universe, and that is where you must stay according to your own assumptions. The question as to whether or not God exists is simply not a subject for science to deal with because it cannot deal with, given the assumptions on which science is based. It is beyond the limits of the scientific method. Every true scientist knows this. You are always limited by your assumptions. And I did not say that religion exists because God exists. The polytheism you are talking about in the world's religions may simply be due to our limited understanding of the nature of God. I personally do not even like using the word "God" because it carries to much theological baggage with it. For example, there is the assumption inJudaim, Christianity and Islam that God is a personal being who cares for and directs the course of the world he (note the use of the personal pronoun "he") created. Well, that may or may not be the case. I prefer to think of God as simply being the ultimate reality and the source of all that is about which nothing much can be said. Why do I say that? Because even in Christian theology God is assumed to be infinite reality. Now how can you speak of the infinite? You cannot. All human language limits reality to certain logical categories. For example, a book is a book and not a pencil, and a red book is not a blue book. So you can see how all words limit reality. How then can an infinite reality be contained or expressed within the categories of human language or logic. It could not be. And that is "God".

Mickey-1983943

I mean no disrespect just want to ask a couple of questions to help me understand your point of view. Does that mean that polytheism was wrong and monotheism is right? That seems like an illogical viewpoint, to me, since polytheism came first, but that just be my misunderstanding or lack of spiritual thought process. Could you explain it better for someone not well versed in philosophy?

The polytheism you are talking about in the world's religions may simply be due to our limited understanding of the nature of God.

Could it also be assumed that it is possible that over time as we grew, we as a people either got better in tune to define God, as you put it, in monotheism, or that we got more out of tune and polytheism is correct? It seems that we are assuming that the first society to go with religion did so with less understanding, correct? As time went on we learned more?

By far your post is the best one I have ever read for claiming there is a god, using science as a key. Bravo.

JVSimp,

Those are very good questions that, unfortunately, I can't give any definitive answer to. Religion is a very big subject about which countless thousands of books have been written, and there are numerous theories about the origin and nature of the religions of the world. Some of those theories have an anti-religious motive and are meant to discredit theistic faith by attributing its origin to fear, the objectification of desire, a twisted sexual desire (Freud's "libido"), the political manipulation of the masses by a priesthood, to social injustice, dreams and trances or some other unworthy motive. But the validity of a belief or institution does not depend on its historical origins but on its present rationality and worth. For example, astronomy, chemistry and manual labor are not discredited by their historical connections with astrology, alchemy, and slavery. The same holds true for religion. It is not discredited by the fact that it may have originated from earlier superstitions of one kind or another. Both polytheism and monotheism are forms of theism. The essential idea of theism, as a philosophic concept, is of a unitary, personal Being as the creative source or ground of the physical world, man and value, at the same time transcendent to and immanent in nature. You asked if polytheism is wrong and monotheism is right, but I'm not sure such a dichotomy exists. In the first place we do not know for certain that polytheism is older than monotheism. We know that most ancient or primitive societies had multiple gods, but in most cases all we have is their images or myths about their activities. We do not know whether or not there was a unitive philosophy underlying the appearance of multiple gods. In many forms of polytheism there is a chief god who is considered the father of all the other gods (e.g. "Zeus" or "Chronos" in Greek mythology and "Jupiter" in Roman mythology). That in itself could be understood as a hint at monotheism. We simply do not know for sure, but I think a good example of what I am trying to say would be Hinduism, one of the oldest still surviving "polytheistic" religions. Many Westerners look upon Hinduism as "polytheistic" because of the numerous "gods" in their pantheon. But some Hindus are offended by that suggestion because the Vedanta school of Hindu philosophy teaches that there is only one "God", which they call "brahman" and which is the source of all the other "gods". The other gods are simply manifestations or emanations from that one source as light and heat emanate from fire, and, indeed, the entire physical universe is an emanation from that same source about which nothing can be said. The common response, when asked about what "brahman" is, is the Sanskrit: "Neti, neti", which means "not this; not that". A similar idea may have been concealed behind the other "polytheistic" religions of antiquity but the philosophic expression of it lost. We have no way of knowing for sure. Variations on the Hindu Vedanta theory are contained in books such as Joseph Campbell's "The Masks of God", and "The Mythic Image", Aldous Huxley's "The Perennial Philosophy", and Huston Smith's "Forgotten Truth" and "The Religions of Man". So I don't think you can really say polytheism is right and monotheismis wrong or vice versa. They are just two different ways of looking at the world that may, in fact, be related to each other. At any rate, I had better stop here before I end up writing yet another book on religion. I'm sorry I couldn't do a better job of answering your question, but as I said, religion is a vast and complex subject.

Great discourse, Mickey, and one to which I'd like to add my $0.02. The definitions of polytheism and monotheism are very clear in the dictionary, but to me, a bit more blurry in the real world. We think of Greek mythology as polytheism, while Roman Catholics are avowed monotheists, claiming to worship the "one true God." Imagine you are looking at the structure of both religions without any advanced definition. In Greek mythology, you sees Zeus on top ruling a bunch of subordinant gods who sometimes meddle in human affairs. With Roman Catholicism and you see God on top ruling a bunch of subordinate angels who sometimes meddle in human affairs. You might very well conclude that you are seeing two offshoots of the same religion. So, anybody up for arguing that Roman Catholics are really polytheists because they have more than one being "above" mankind or arguing that the Greeks were really monotheists because they had one head honcho, Zues, ruling everybody else?

You alluded to these semantics in #175. I just wanted to add my opinion (and I am aware that it is just my opinion)

Jaeger and Bury among others maintain Greek religion to be monotheistic. Pythagorean religious beliefs are clearly monotheistic.

The mutiple gods are aspects of god or forces that are eternal. This there is a god of Peace and of War, of Harmony and of Discord, of Logic and Reason. The Greek ideal was a life in balance. One was to worship at the temples of all the god. Euripides's Baccante deals with a young man who tried to live by Reason alone. When he meets Emotions, they tear him apart. An often misused phrase is "Platonic love". In the Phaedrus, it is true the idea get great praise, but at the very end, the idea is abandoned by Socrates Himself because Eros was denied, and Eros is a god. The biblical "For everything there is a season.." is very Hellenic.

Most, if not all religions, have a popular form for ordinary people and a theological form for those who want to reach higher levels of understanding. At the higher level, religions seem often to merge.

samenslow,

"Most, if not all religions, have a popular form for ordinary people and a theological form for those who want to reach higher levels of understanding. At the higher level, religions seem often to merge."

That's right. It's the distinction between the exoteric and esoteric forms of religion. Buddhism, for example, appears to many people as being polytheistic and many Buddhists practice it as if it were, but on the higher levels of Buddhist philosophy and psychology, Buddhism is not even theistic at all nor is Hinduism, for that matter, since "brahman", the ultimate reality that we might call "God" is not a personal god in any sense of the word as is the god of Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. Brahman is simply the source, ground or foundation of everything that exists. You don't pray to brahman or worship it as such. That's why, on the popular level, those who feel the need for a personal god will worship one of the incarnations of brahman such as Vishnu.

Bill Fuller,

"So, anybody up for arguing that Roman Catholics are really polytheists because they have more than one being "above" mankind or arguing that the Greeks were really monotheists because they had one head honcho, Zues, ruling everybody else?"

It could be argued that way, and, in fact, Muslims have argued that most Christians are polytheists based not on their belief in angels (Muslims also believe in angels), but on their belief that God is a Trinity of three persons in one God. Judaism and Islam are monotheistic in the fullest sense of the word, i.e. there is only one God who is only one person. Anything else strikes them as being polytheism.

You may not have answered the way you wished you could but it was a great answer Mickey. Thank you for the information.

JVSimp,

Thanks. It's just such a big subject it's hard even to know where to even begin.

(Where's your scientific collaboration to support that claim?)....why would I need scientific collaboration , I don't bow at the altar of science. Science can't explain love or a notion. That would be why so few people bow at that altar.

(A poor point. Gravity can be observed and quantified. Your god cannot.)...says who? you? ha. God(the Holy Spirit ) can be observed every day in churches or in anointed music or during a gathering of a million and a half youths together for World Youth Day in Madrid...you have to know where to look and what to look for, He'll reveal it to you. (Your claims for a god is absurd. You assume it's god and don't even bother to consider any other possibility)...once again ,says who?you/haha you have no authorityor knowledge. You look for every possibility besides God, that why you have to keep falling back to your opinion or science....

Science can't explain love or a notion.

Goggling "science of love" returns 314,000,000 results

http://www.youramazingbrain.org/lovesex/sciencelove.htm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/hottopics/love/

The Science of Love

• There are three phases to falling in love and different hormones are involved at each stage.
• Events occurring in the brain when we are in love have similarities with mental illness.
• When we are attracted to somebody, it could be because subconsciously we like their genes.
• Smell could be as important as looks when it comes to the fanciability factor. We like the look and smell of people who are most like our parents.
• Science can help determine whether a relationship will last.

By the way, scisnce has also been able to explain the belief in god, or rather the manner in which one believes.

Everthing about us boils down to biochemistry.

Scott, that's simple. Your god will never be a possiblility.

Without him you would have never been a possibility.

That's only if you believe in your god. There are many religions that pre date x-tianity. Simply because you believe in your god doesn't mean everyone else does our has to. Pushy x-tians give your religion a bad name.

Without him you would have never been a possibility.

Without Scott? Seems rather silly, unless Scott is DeeDee's biological father.

buttzie,

"Without Scott? Seems rather silly, unless Scott is DeeDee's biological father."

That's a good one! If TruettCollins had just followed the tradition of capitalizing the 'h' in 'him' or 'his' when referring to God, the ambiguity would have been avoided. Sometimes tradition can be a good thing.

The response would still have been irrelevant. That's her belief not everyone else's.

ZenFreedom,

"The response would still have been irrelevant."

You're right, of course, but even so, it did provide a good opportunity for buttzie's wit.

(Everthing about us boils down to biochemistry.)...says who??? there again you and the worshippers of science (as small as that is)can all agree on that but it doesn't make it so.

(Scott, that's simple. Your god will never be a possiblility.)...an opinion, as absurd as it may be, when God is visible in everything, you just have to look!!!

TY Mickey. Although my wit is limited and dry, it's appreciated when complemented on. Also your retort to my previous post was quite an interesting read. However, there is one statement I wish to comment on.

If you assume to begin with that there is nothing beyond the material universe and that the material universe can be entirely explained in terms of itself, then how can you even begin to consider whether or not there is anything beyond the material universe

I guess I have a issue with the term 'assume' versus any other point you made. I don't believe one who has spends their life studying science simply "assume'. I realize it is easy to use the term. But I believe one can't expect scientists to use the word on a day to day basis. To further my explanation, lets use the above study(from your statement) as an example-cosmogony. Although not knowing one who studies this personally, I believe one would come to a conclusion(assumption?) based on other plausible disciplines, in this case astrophysics. By using the mechanics of this field to deliver a conclusion or theory demands a term other than 'assume'.

buttzie,

I was talking about the basic philosophical assumptions that underlie the scientific method and the scientific world view. Everyone make assumptions. Assumptions are what you take as being axiomatic, that is, self-evident. For example, in Euclidean geometry it is an axiom that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. That is a basic assumption, an axiom. It cannot be proven. Its is simply taken for granted as being self-evident. Are you trying to tell me that scientists assume that there is something beyond the material universe? I don't think so.

an opinion, as absurd as it may be, when God is visible in everything, you just have to look!!!

As you said: "an opinion, as absurd as it may be"

And absurd it is!

says who???

Biologist, biochemists, ect...

there again you and the worshippers of science (as small as that is)can all agree on that but it doesn't make it so.

Neither does your beliefs to the contrary.

God(the Holy Spirit ) can be observed every day in churches or in anointed music or during a gathering of a million and a half youths together for World Youth Day in Madrid

There's no god anywhere in there. Just a bunch of people who might believe in one. But no proof of a god itself.

you have to know where to look and what to look for, He'll reveal it to you

There's circular reasoning for you.

You look for every possibility besides God, that why you have to keep falling back to your opinion or science....

Provide evidence to support the possibility of a god and I'll consider it. As it is, there is none. At least science substantiates itself through objective, empirical evidence. All you have is baseless opinion and mere belief.

Without him you would have never been a possibility.

Prove it! Without my parents, I never would have been a possibility. God has nothing to do with that!

(Scott, that's simple. Your god will never be a possiblility.)...an opinion, as absurd as it may be, when God is visible in everything, you just have to look!!!

Really? Could you take a picture? And what about your statements? Aren't they opinions too? They're no better than mine.

you have to know where to look and what to look for, He'll reveal it to you

Could you cite examples on possible venues of where your god might show up? Do you think he would show up in Mecca? Tehran perhaps? Also, you said he is visible in everything, why do I need to know where to look and what to look for? Your contradict yourself too much.

Without him you would have never been a possibility.

Since when did Scott become my father? LOL. OH wait, I believe I became a possibility because BUDDHA reincarnated me with the help of the Pink Unicorn Almighty. Prove to me that BUDDHA is wrong and the Pink Unicorn does not exist, then maybe i'll consider your absurd opinions.

It is my biological parents who made me possible, you know, by copulating. I don't remember them telling me that they prayed and then I just appeared out of thin air because some god made it possible.