Court rulings on marriage

[Sentinel947 1205]

 

I agree, those subpenas where serious overreach. Even the ACLU thought so (what? Liberals defending religious freedom? Gosh! That isn't supposed to happen! After all, everyone knows liberals hate both God and America!):

http://www.aclutx.org/2014/10/17/city-of-houston-subpoenas-of-sermons-statement-from-the-aclu-of-texas/

and

https://www.aclu.org/aclu-defense-religious-practice-and-expression

 

 

I hope you aren't putting words in my mouth. I've made no such comments about liberals, or conservatives for that matter.

[Rick_in_CA 401]

I don't think it's a stretch to say that homosexuality is not acceptable in at least three of the main religions of the world, Muslim, Judaism, and Christianity, and yet it is through non-religious measures allowed.

Stosh

 

Both Reform Judaism (one of the largest Jewish denomination in the US) and Reconstructionist Judaism would disagree with you on this (though Orthodox Judaism would agree and Conservative Judaism is mixed on it). So are you one of the ones that say Reform Jews are not "real" Jews so they don't count?

 

Many welcoming Christian churches don't condemn homosexuality (or course there is a whole spectrum on that), unless those don't count either because they are not "real" Christians (like the FRC thinks: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/tony-perkins-arbiter-christianity-says-pro-gay-christians-dont-have-same-religious-rights-co)?

 

I don't know enough about Muslim attitudes on the subject to comment.

 

But yes, I do think it's a "real stretch"!

[Stosh 3452]

 

Both Reform Judaism (one of the largest Jewish denomination in the US) and Reconstructionist Judaism would disagree with you on this (though Orthodox Judaism would agree and Conservative Judaism is mixed on it). So are you one of the ones that say Reform Jews are not "real" Jews so they don't count?

 

Many welcoming Christian churches don't condemn homosexuality (or course there is a whole spectrum on that), unless those don't count either because they are not "real" Christians (like the FRC thinks: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/tony-perkins-arbiter-christianity-says-pro-gay-christians-dont-have-same-religious-rights-co)?

 

I don't know enough about Muslim attitudes on the subject to comment.

 

But yes, I do think it's a "real stretch"!

 

If one is going to look at the teachings of the religion and what people actually do, one is going to find a differing opinion from every individual. A religion is not what people practice and or justify in their minds, it is the code by which the religion is based, Bible, Koran and Talmud. One can't get a straight answer to a simple question out of most people practicing what they call "their" religion. I was not referring to the people, I was referring to the religion, that is it's teachings from their sacred manuscripts.

 

As far as judging the people as has been alluded to, that too is a human characteristic of how one applies or ignores the religious principles. I'm thinking that according to some of the news articles on the subject, the Muslims probably deal with them the harshest.

 

I guess what it amounts to is how far does an individual deviate from the written codes before they are no longer considered part of that religion.

 

Stosh

[Rick_in_CA 401]

 

If one is going to look at the teachings of the religion and what people actually do, one is going to find a differing opinion from every individual. A religion is not what people practice and or justify in their minds, it is the code by which the religion is based, Bible, Koran and Talmud. One can't get a straight answer to a simple question out of most people practicing what they call "their" religion. I was not referring to the people, I was referring to the religion, that is it's teachings from their sacred manuscripts.

 

As far as judging the people as has been alluded to, that too is a human characteristic of how one applies or ignores the religious principles. I'm thinking that according to some of the news articles on the subject, the Muslims probably deal with them the harshest.

 

I guess what it amounts to is how far does an individual deviate from the written codes before they are no longer considered part of that religion.

 

Stosh

 

Wow. OK, let me see if I understand what you are saying here. When you say "Christianity says that homosexuality is not acceptable" (or words to that effect), it appears you are flatly saying that all real Christians must believe that (that it's a Fundamental Christian Principle*), and that Christian denomination over there that doesn't agree are not real Christians? Or to put it another way, you are saying that anti-homosexuality is fundamental to Christianity and any Christian domination that doesn't agree is betraying a fundamental tenant of what it means to be Christian?

 

* Fundamental Christian Principle - for example believing that Christ is the son of God and he died for our sins - pretty fundamental to the meaning of "Christian". People like Christian Deists are not really Christians in the normal sense (Deism rejects any sort of miraculous interventions like the existence of a divine Jesus - therefor Jesus was just a mortal man like the rest of us).

[Stosh 3452]

 

Wow. OK, let me see if I understand what you are saying here. When you say "Christianity says that homosexuality is not acceptable" (or words to that effect), it appears you are flatly saying that all real Christians must believe that (that it's a Fundamental Christian Principle*), and that Christian denomination over there that doesn't agree are not real Christians? Or to put it another way, you are saying that anti-homosexuality is fundamental to Christianity and any Christian domination that doesn't agree is betraying a fundamental tenant of what it means to be Christian?

 

* Fundamental Christian Principle - for example believing that Christ is the son of God and he died for our sins - pretty fundamental to the meaning of "Christian". People like Christian Deists are not really Christians in the normal sense (Deism rejects any sort of miraculous interventions like the existence of a divine Jesus - therefor Jesus was just a mortal man like the rest of us).

 

Nope, that's not what I said at all. I said the sacred writings of the religions say that homosexuality is not acceptable. Everything after that you have assumed I have said and found it helpful to your cause to conclude something I never said. Whether a person follows the guidance of such sacred writings or not is up to them, but whatever they do doesn't change the writings of the sacred manuscripts. The reason we have so many different flavors of Christianity, Judaism and Islam is because humans have reasoned within their own minds what they want the scriptures to mean to them. What one may conclude has no relevance to what the sacred writing said. It is only relevant to the person making the justification. We all have free will and we all have to answer to the choices we make.

 

Stosh