GameBanshee Forums

Apology accepted, and I think I understand what you mean, now. However, just a little nitpicking note, 'non-denominational' doesn't mean 'non-Christian.'

Details, details, details. (Flicks through a Thesaurus) Does non-theistic work for you?

Originally posted by EMINEM


Not fully in the only country that counts. To summarize things as they apply to the US (BTW, these aren't research finding; they're written laws, so please don't tell me it's propoganda):

Those living together have no legal property ownership rights.

Those living together need an additional written property agreement when purchasing a home.

Those living together have additional parenting issues because they are not automatically recognized as the legal parents.

Those living together cannot make financial decisions for the other if he or she is injured or incapacitated unless they have a "durable power of attorney."

Those living together cannot make medical decisions for the other if he or she is injured or incapacitated unless they have a "durable power of attorney for healthcare."

Those living together cannot make end of life decisions for the
other if he or she is dying.

Those living together cannot make funeral arrangement if the other dies.

Those living together do not automatically receive survivor inheritances if the other dies as would be the case if married.

I will not comment on the "the only country" part. It would get me banned.

But all the "reasons" for marriage - they're kind of the material sort... so IF I married my partner just for MATERIAL reasons - wouldn't that be contrary to the bible ? Marriage as a means of finacial and worldly goals ?
Wouldn't that make the holy sacrament of marriage into a BUSINESS DEAL ?

No worries,

Beldin

Originally posted by EMINEM


There is an "acceptable" ratio between the number of times people hop into their cars to go driving versus the number of automobile fatalities that occur in a given year. Otherwise, we would have stopped manufacturing cars long ago. 'Same goes for the number of people who go to bed, and the number who end up waking up the next morning, as well as the number of people who undergo a blood transfusion, and the number who accidentally contract a terminal virus during the procedure. In all these cases, and in many other normal life scenarios where death may be a factor, the benefits and chances for living outweigh the risks involved. The same thing cannot be said, however, about sexually transmitted diseases.

So as far as I can work out from what you've read, is that many people survive driving a car rather than die in it? The same goes for having sex. Millions of people have a sex a night and not all of them get STI's. Just because one person has an STI and you have sex with them doesn't say you will catch it, it's more likely but it might not happen.

Originally posted by frogus
I would like a practical way of deciding IN REAL LIFE what's propaganda and what isn't. And please noone tell me it's common sense.

Propaganda is anything that sends someone's personal opinion because that opinion is biased...

Originally posted by Nippy


Just because one person has an STI and you have sex with them doesn't say you will catch it, it's more likely but it might not happen.

And you're willing to take that risk? What if this particular STD is HIV, the virus that causes AIDS? We're not talking about a minor genital inflammation here. I think when you consider the benefits, weigh in the risk, and calculate the costs of losing your saving throw, it's better to play safe than be sorry for the rest of your life. But of course, that choice is yours to make.

Originally posted by EMINEM


And you're willing to take that risk? What if this particular STD is HIV, the virus that causes AIDS?

The problem as I see it with the fear-of-infection argument is that the solution lies, not in marriage, but in trust, and the two are not synonymous. As you pointed out yourself, @Eminem, many people simply jump into marriage these days without thought of commitment, and jump out as easily, again. It is difficult to trust a partner that has been acquired under such circumstances. And as AIDS and similar immune deficiency diseases frequently manifest their first symptoms years after infection, you can end up married and divorced before you realize that your former partner had lied about their background, leaving you with a life-threatening condition.

Originally posted by Ode to a Grasshopper


Details, details, details. (Flicks through a Thesaurus) Does non-theistic work for you?

Yes.

I only pointed out the inaccuracy of "non-denominational" because of the fact that my friend goes to a non-denominational church and they're more on fire for the Lord than the Southern Baptist church I'm currently attending.

Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral. ~ Hebrews 13:4

It saddens me that so many people nowadays choose to not honor marriage, doing nothing more than making it, as Beldin said, a 'business deal.' Marriage is something special, something meant to last for the rest of your life, a commitment to spend the rest of your life with someone because you love that person more than anyone else, no matter what their flaws(and that includes bad sex), yet it seems that so few people understand this.

Originally posted by fable


The problem as I see it with the fear-of-infection argument is that the solution lies, not in marriage, but in trust, and the two are not synonymous. As you pointed out yourself, @Eminem, many people simply jump into marriage these days without thought of commitment, and jump out as easily, again. It is difficult to trust a partner that has been acquired under such circumstances. And as AIDS and similar immune deficiency diseases frequently manifest their first symptoms years after infection, you can end up married and divorced before you realize that your former partner had lied about their background, leaving you with a life-threatening condition.

Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let no man seperate."
"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"
Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."
Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it." ~ Matthew 19: 3-12

Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

This has been the cause of tremendous friction within the RCC--and in one case, removed an entire nation from the RCC axis, as Henry VIII, for purely mundane reasons, had no intention of dropping his demands for a divorce because a religious leader insisted (as he put it) on mundane rule. Then, too, there were the dispensations for divorce that provided a source of funds and influence in the Papacy...

Sailor Saturn, how do you feel about this rather plainly spoken commandment?

Originally posted by fable
Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

This has been the cause of tremendous friction within the RCC--and in one case, removed an entire nation from the RCC axis, as Henry VIII, for purely mundane reasons, had no intention of dropping his demands for a divorce because a religious leader insisted (as he put it) on mundane rule. Then, too, there were the dispensations for divorce that provided a source of funds and influence in the Papacy...

Sailor Saturn, how do you feel about this rather plainly spoken commandment?

IIRC, you are alluding to the Anglican Church seperating itself from the RCC.

I believe exactly what it says, that no one should get divorced unless it is because the other has been unfaithful. By being unfaithful, they have already broken the promise and commitment that was made when the couple married.

The decision to marry is a huge decision. There is much that results from this decision, including the commitment to spend the rest of your life with the person you are marrying. It is sad that so many people have such little respect for marriage that the dishonor it by marrying and divorcing and marrying and divorcing so often.

Someone explain to Waverly why we are attempting to anwer questions with quotes from the bible. If I tried to answer a complex question with quotes from Moby D!ck, someone would rightfully point out the irrelevance. Furthermore: once you pull out the bible, unless you are hopelessly discriminatory, you necessarily enter such works as the the Torah and I Ching into evidence. Hint: those books don’t necessarily agree with the Christian bible.

I think the guilty parties are using the Bible quotes to try and explain their Christian belief that marriage is better than partnership. They are basically saying 'I think marriage is better than partnership because God says so'. Other people are then saying 'no he doesn't, god thinks something different' to try and get the Christians to abandon their positions. That's where Bible quotes become relevent, and I think quotes from any other holy book are equally relevant if they preach marriage and give reasons why. The reason the Bible came up is because some people in this thread believe it's position on marriage, and (as far as I know) noone believes any other holy books. If your opinions on marriage are based on or exemplified (real word?) by Moby D|ck, feel free to bring it into discussion.

Originally posted by Waverly
Someone explain to Waverly why we are attempting to anwer questions with quotes from the bible. If I tried to answer a complex question with quotes from Moby D!ck, someone would rightfully point out the irrelevance. Furthermore: once you pull out the bible, unless you are hopelessly discriminatory, you necessarily enter such works as the the Torah and I Ching into evidence. Hint: those books don’t necessarily agree with the Christian bible.

Is there anyone here who is Daoist or Confucianist? All I have seen participating in this arguement are, as far as has been said, either Christian, Athiest, or Agnostic. As there are Christians in this discussion, the Bible is a relevant resource. Bring someone in who considers Moby D!ck to be a holy text of their religion and I will not object to them quoting it, though in my last reading of Moby D!ck, I saw nothing relevant to this current discussion.

If you wish to quote the Torah or I Ching, go ahead. I have no objections. Since Fable requested quotes from the Bible on this matter, I figure his intent was to see what the Bible has to say and make comments on what he may agree with and what he doesn't agree with, thus bringing about further dialogue on the subject at hand. The I Ching, Kama Sutra, Torah, and any other 'religious text' that you wish to quote on this matter are thoroughly welcome, though I would ask that the quotes be specifically about the topic, of course. IIRC, the Code/Laws of Manu has some "interesting" things to say about the relationship between a husband and wife. Something about the wife worshipping the husband's big toe, or something like that.

Originally posted by frogus
I think the guilty parties are using the Bible quotes to try and explain their Christian belief that marriage is better than partnership. They are basically saying 'I think marriage is better than partnership because God says so'. Other people are then saying 'no he doesn't, god thinks something different' to try and get the Christians to abandon their positions. That's where Bible quotes become relevent, and I think quotes from any other holy book are equally relevant if they preach marriage and give reasons why. The reason the Bible came up is because some people in this thread believe it's position on marriage, and (as far as I know) noone believes any other holy books. If your opinions on marriage are based on or exemplified (real word?) by Moby D|ck, feel free to bring it into discussion.

By "guilty parties," do you specifically mean those who are quoting the Bible?

And in my case, the decision that marriage is better than partnership is a decision I made on my own that is merely supported by God's word. Like many things I believe, it is not because God said it, but because I came to such-and-such conclusion and God agrees with me.

By "guilty parties," do you specifically mean those who are quoting the Bible?

'guilty parties' was a joke... . I was just underlining the accusational tone of Waverly's post.

And in my case, the decision that marriage is better than partnership is a decision I made on my own that is merely supported by God's word. Like many things I believe, it is not because God said it, but because I came to such-and-such conclusion and God agrees with me.

Good. So will you promise to stop using God's word and tell us more about the logic behind this rational decison which you made yourself?

Originally posted by frogus
Good. So will you promise to stop using God's word and tell us more about the logic behind this rational decison which you made yourself?

No, I won't promise to stop using God's word. God's word backs up my belief.

just humour me @SS...If you came to the conclusion yourself without God's input, then I would hope that you did it through some sort of reason. One can assume things with no factual evidence or logic, but only if one believes in God, and is prepared to say tht he causes things for which there is no earthly explanation. Now, if you decided that marriage was better than partnership without god's input, you must have done so by deducing it or observing some 'earthly explanation'. If you say that the conclusion that marriage is better than partnership can be reached without explaining it away on god's word (which you did, just a couple of posts ago) then tell us how.

EDIT: god's word backs up your belief as far as you're concerned, but as you are arguing with atheists, you are either going to have to say something other than 'because god made it, so it is', or tell us that that is your only argument in which case the debate can go forwards no longer.

Is there anyone here who is Daoist or Confucianist?

Does it matter? Surely you would not suggest that we should ignore their POV because you don’t think they are present. And for the record, there are people here who do not fall into the bins you mention.

As there are Christians in this discussion, the Bible is a relevant resource. Bring someone in who considers Moby D!ck to be a holy text of their religion and I will not object to them quoting it, though in my last reading of Moby D!ck, I saw nothing relevant to this current discussion.

Funny, in my last reading of the bible I remember seeing nothing relevant to the discussion either. Thus my point. You may well share some of the values expressed in the bible (though for your sake hopefully not all) and I’d go so far as to say that many of those traits are quite admirable… however, if you cannot explain your POV in your own words (perhaps supplemented with scientifically collected data) then all you are doing is witnessing.

Funny, in my last reading of the bible I remember seeing nothing relevant to the discussion either.

Fable asked for Bible quotes relevent to the discussion earlier on (top of page 8) and was given some..they do exist, I checked.

Originally posted by Waverly
Funny, in my last reading of the bible I remember seeing nothing relevant to the discussion either.

Then I suggest you stop spamming/flaming/whatever-it-is-you-call-what-you-do-here-in-SYM and go spend more time reading your Bible. It would seem that you have missed quite a bit.

Thus my point. You may well share some of the values expressed in the bible (though for your sake hopefully not all) and I’d go so far as to say that many of those traits are quite admirable… however, if you cannot explain your POV in your own words (perhaps supplemented with scientifically collected data) then all you are doing is witnessing.

Scientific data is irrelevant as there is no way to scientifically measure trust, love, and commitment. On the other hand, the Bible deals constantly with trust, love, and commitment.

I am sorry that you do not see it that way, but you must remember that you have the right to be wrong.