@OhItWontBeForever - Careful, my friend. The consequences of sin are not always so obvious and often lay dormant until suddenly it strikes like a viper.

HIV/AIDS being one such more observable example, speaking generally.
But, on the topic of AIDS, imagine the “not going to affect anyone else” mentality so many people have when applied to having sex (when sex is the issues, for instance) – the consentual adults situation – and I doubt many people will be quite as ready to eagerly accept the idea that such behavior will not hurt anyone else. I, for one, would not feel so comfortable sleeping with just anyone I please simply because “it’s not going to hurt anyone else”. Suppose I had that same mentality and then slept with woman after woman. Eventually, I’m going to get AIDS. Eventually…I’m going to hurt an unsuspecting woman simply because I thought it wasn’t going to hurt anyone else. Why not? No one else was involved. But, the truth is, we know AIDS is not so…exclusive…in its thinking.

We don’t always know the effects of what we’ve done until it’s much too late to do anything about it.
You told me once that you consider me to be wise. I’m honored that you think so. I hope you’ll give thought to my words here and weigh it honestly with truth and discernment. I believe you to be a considerate woman. It’s my hope you’ll agree with what I’ve said above.

@cinnamontoastsalinda - Eager to bring the end of a world closer to home all that much sooner, eh? LLLOOOLLL

@OhItWontBeForever - To a point, I also agree with you, too.
First, I certainly didn’t mean to say that HIV/AIDS is limited to homosexuals. I hope I didn’t sound like I was saying so, but if I did, that wasn’t my intent. It was purely a general example to illustraite my point.

The thing is, though, with you being Muslim and I Christian, we both can agree that we reference an absolute standard – a standard that all other judgments for right and wrong are measured. Now, the question of whose standard is the right and true standard is a totally different matter. But we can agree that we both believe in an absolute morality: that which gives definition to everything else. (Imagine a dictionary that lists every word in a language but leaves the definitions up to the readers and speakers of that language…)

Just because people will choose otherwise – to go against that moral standard, as it is their right to choose – does not mean that they are free from the consequences. Cause and effect are scientific facts, for those who choose to subscribe solely to science. Ironically, science can only observe and make reference to what already exists. Language allows us to provide descriptors for science and other things so that we may communicate our measages and thoughts even when experience for others is not readily possible. But if we allow people to simply go their own simply because they choose to, then we do them no service. it’s one thing to force others to do what they don’t want. It’s another to stand by and let it happen.
To explain, picture an intersection where people can freely cross through or stop and carefully take their turns to avoid causing themselves and others harm. Common sense should tell us that one should at least slow down to make sure the way is clear…but common sense also shows us that there will be enough idiots who don’t care to use common sense. Laws will be inacted…stop signs errected.

Many people will stop to obey the law even if they don’t know why they should or don’t like it. They just know there’s a reason and will respectfully obey. Obviously, a stop sign won’t force anyone to stop. Crashing into another car will take care of that problem.

But I think, perhaps, the question is: should we not uphold the law of morality in as much as we can do so simply because others disagree or will even rebel against it? Should we not uphold the laws of Jesus/Allah simply because others refuse to recognize the authority and love of the Lord? Certainly, that would only lead to insanity.

Unfortunately, insanity is as readily available as “healthy” breakfast cereal (like Fruit Loops) and too many people are chowing down like their life depended on it.

@OhItWontBeForever - All the more reason to uphold the laws/morality set forth by God. Eventually, people will see that the consequences they suffer differ greatly from the consequences we enjoy. It’s not a matter of force, but example.

@mathematicalbagpiper - I’m not afraid of homosexuals. That’s a misconception many people hold against people like me. I’ve actually ran across many gay people at work…while I’m not used to be around such people, I’m no less willing and glad to offer them a respectful helping hand (and not because it’s my job). I recognize them as people like me. Deserving of respect as a fellow human being.
However, if someone thinks it’s okay to steal and I disagree, that doesn’t mean I’m simply going to let them steal from me. Just because they believe one thing and I believe another doesn’t mean it’s okay to allow both. Given that both points of view conflict directly and both are claiming to be morally right, only one can truly be right. That’s just plain logical. So it is with homosexuality. The difference is that theft results in immediate consequences…

I somewhat agree with you on the matters of our nation, though. I personally won’t SAY the pledge of allegiance or cover my heart. There are things about our country that I’m just plain at odds with and cannot bring myself to say I will unswervingly follow my country. However, I do believe that there are other things that our country does do well. So at the very least, I will stand out of respect that this is the country in which I live. And while it is FAR from anything close to being perfect, it does have it’s good points and that’s worth at least standing for.

@mathematicalbagpiper - I clearly see that in secular minds, religious ideas hold no water. That’s because the logic in secular thinking is flawed. I promise you, while I have no heard every argument, I’ve heard many, if not most, and none of them hold any water. Coincidentally, Christianity, namely God’s word, is described as Living Water. Ironic, no?
And to be accurate, what sends a person to Hell is their own 100% rejection of Christ. It’s true, a person who accepts Christ SHOULD turn away from all sins. But, Jesus recognizes that in our journey towards fully following Him AND in keeping that we retain full freel will to choose to follow Him or not, it will take time before a person learns to obey God and to not sin as often as they might have before Christ. So yes, even Christians sin. But so do non-Christians. I’ve seen and heard many people who reject Christ but are still just as hypocritical about their own ideas of right and wrong. In one way or another, EVERYONE has been hypocritical.

Interestingly enough: no matter what country you go to, you’re going to find issues like the one you described to @yingforyouryang.
For two reasons:
1) You’re already promoting religious intolerance when you make such comments to me and my fellow Christians the way you do. And I’m not even pursuing a science degree.
2) Japan has been known to show racism against people who have Japanese and black parents. I saw it on a news report a few years ago. Many mixed-ethnic kids explained being called “chocolate” simply because one parent was black. So, don’t move to Japan. Australia has some people who have a thing against New Zealanders. And vise versa. So don’t move to those countries, either. China has a sex slave trade going on, if I’m not mistaken. So does Mexico. (Feeling pretty limited on places to go yet? Small world, after all.) And just because the government of Canada has legalized homosexaul marriages doesn’t mean you won’t find people there (religious or not) who are against homosexual marriages. So you may as well rules out our Northern Buddies, too. And since you mentioned “among other things”, we may as well rule out all of South America given that they traffic drugs and…other things. Africa is riddled with civil war in parts, which includes racism amongst themselves…and they’re all black!!! …just different tribes. The Irish don’t care for the English still, last I heard. I think it’s both ways. Much of the Asian continent has some kind of sexist attitude towards women. Definitely through much of the Middle East, too.
Just what is it you’re AFTER, anyway? The Garden of Eden? Some kind of Utopia? Face it man, anywhere you might go you’re going to run into these problems in one way or another. You’re looking for something that’s good…but does not presently exist that’s also presently reachable.

Oh, and evolution has not been proven. It’s still a theory, remember?
Science seeks to find answers that already exist. It just happens that many people have a strong hunch that the origins of our universe came about differently. That’s rather how scientific facts are discovered…people have theories THEN find the truth. They seek out the answers through scientific means. Just because someone believes in God doesn’t mean they aren’t scientific. They’re just coming from the mindset of learning about the world about them that they believe God created. They still use beakers and test tubes and test and retest and write theories and test again until they find the facts about what they were testing. They’re just trying to understand how things work like everyone else. Science is a means to LEARN about what already IS. That’s it.

And even within scientific studies where religion is not even close to a topic at hand, there are still debates. One such debate I read about involved matters about the sun and its affects on the earth in the years to come (it was rather beyond me in detail) and the article talked about the two sides of this study and some of the inconclusive calculations that were being presented. So tell me…how can you truly discredit religiously-minded people who are simply trying to find answers when even those WITHIN the scientific community have conflicts of their own?!

…it sounds like nothing will ever be good enough for you…
That’s just how it seems.

@greenbird321 - Thanks. I appreciate that.

@mathematicalbagpiper - I also find it funny that when I present an argument that you don’t like yet don’t SEEM to be able to have a reasonable reply to, you revert to insults which sound a lot like the same discriminitory issues you claim to have a problem with.

@mathematicalbagpiper - You never actually asked me to shut up about my faith. One of us replies to the other and so our arguments ensue. You’ve commented to me first just like I’ve commented to you first in the past. So, basically we’re both guilty of that. But the difference is that I try to reason with you about the ill-founded logic you have. I don’t attack you personally. I try to show you the error in your judgments, but never to ridicule you or make you feel like less of a person who deserves basic human respect.

Coincidentally, you preach, too. But rather than telling you to can it, I seek to have a logical (as best as my logic skills allow…I’m still learning) debate. But because I believe differently than you, you insist on throwing insults and showing anything that is less than respectful.

Your opperation is going to fail you one day. I guarentee it. Sooner or later, your cold, hard-hearted attitude is going to hit you like a spiked ball-n-chain.

But in closing, consider this. While this isn’t any street corner (it’s Xanga and online, obviously), you want people of religion to shut up. You want us to go away. Tell me, why is it that you want religious tolerance (you DID mention that) and yet you have such a hatred for people who simply believe differently than you? You want me to keep my faith private just because you don’t like it? Why is it that you get to speak your mind here on Xanga but I’m not free to do so as well? Why should I keep quiet and you get to speak? Where is your tolerance?

Once again…hypocritical much?

@mathematicalbagpiper - Curiously, rejection does not automatically equal a falsehood. If it’s true that the trees outside my window are green, they’re still green even if I reject that fact. So just because the theory of Creationism has been rejected, it does not mean that is not true. (Doesn’t mean it is true, as a result, either, of course. I’m just saying rejection alone is not a final deciding factor.) There is still evidence that suggests Creationism is worth investigating.

Strangely enough, even the idea that the world was round was rejected. How interesting it is then, that eventually more evidence was found to suggest that the world was not flat after all. It seems that rejecting an idea does not, by itself, mean that it is not true. So, please, don’t use that excuse again.

And for those who do believe in Jesus/the Bible/Christianity (or any other relgious faith), that doesn’t mean they don’t seek to find the truth that science can reveal, too. Even within the scientific community, when religion isn’t the topic – AS I mentioned the other day – there are still arguments about scientific findings and evidence. So your refusal to consider those who have a religious faith is, in essence, bigotry.

For the record, you’re not doing anyone a favor. As an example, if I were so concerned about being embarassed because of my faith, I would not say ANYTHING about God here on Xanga. Even though there are people here who are clearly smarter than me, I know there’s more to the story than what anyone has said against God. Likewise, I am not the only one who will boldly stand for what they believe despite certain ridicule. Most of us know exactly what we’re getting into even when the “majority” thinks we’re fools. I’d have to do some digging to remember specific instances, but there have been a number of times that we “fools” have proven you “enlightened ones” clearly wrong.

I’m pretty sure Galileo and Columbus are two decent examples. (Whether or not they were religious is side-matter in this case.)

@CelestialTeapot - You reference the Supreme Court. Very well. On what does the Supreme Court base its judgments? How does the Court decide what is right or wrong? How does our nation decide what is right or wrong? Our laws are all based on a standard which existed prior to the laws ever being set in place. Furthermore, you reference “basic and fundamental rights”. Once again, those rights would have to be set as the standard prior to humans even existing. How do you prove that these are, in fact, basic and fundamental? Who says?

Any time you make a claim for right or wrong, you are referencing a standard in which to compare your claim against. It’s like a measuring stick. I could make up my own ruler and say “this” distance is an inch. You could do the same and say “that” distance is an inch. But with out a standard to compare our “inches” to, all we have are opinions on what we individually think is the true measurement for an inch. But because there is a universal standard for what an inch is from point A to point B, anything contrary to that standard is not an inch.
Therefore, you make a claim that gay rights include marriages recognized by the government. Okay then: show me the standard to which you make that claim. The Supreme Court alone cannot rightly determine what is right or wrong. They can only ever DISCERN between right and wrong and make a judgment for the case accordingly. All a law does is to state that there will be specific consequences if this line is passed. That’s it. Laws do not determine right or wrong but merely bring to light where that line between right and wrong is.

When the Courts found the laws our country used to have to be a violation of basic human rights, they were, in fact, referencing a standard that they, themselves, did not establish.

The effect of denying gay people is not discriminitory when they do not actually have the rights they claim are being denied. Even they are referencing a standard of morality that, for the sake of argument, may or may not exist. If the standard that they are referencing does not exist after all, then the only effect is a bunch of people having a temper tantrum because they aren’t getting their way.
In reality, it’s no different than a child who wants a cookie but is told no and the child throws a fit claiming “that’s not fair”. The child is, in fact, referencing a standard for right and wrong, siting a violation of what he thinks should be his, but is only trying to get merely what he wants.

Lastly, denying the existance of an ultimate moral standard does not remove it from existance. Obviously. For people many times think that stealing is okay just because they can get away with it skillfully. They percieve their view of right and wrong to be the good one to go on. But that doesn’t change the fact that an ultimate standard exists and supercedes the thief’s moral ideas. Because of that fact, there will be consequences, one way or another, even if that thief is not caught by law enforcement. To give gay people benefits for something that they are not entitled to is like giving that kid a cookie just because he cried annoyingly enough. It also only gives the impression that if you demand your way enough, you’ll get what you want. That only fuels selfish ambition.

Again, this comes down to a simple fact. Morality was established BEFORE you, me, or Adam and Eve. We can argue it all we like…but right will be right and wrong will be wrong. Morality is an essense that exists apart from us. It cannot be manipulated by tugging on a few strings or writing a new law. Remember, laws can only make reference to the line between right and wrong as it already exists prior to the law being made.

To reference what you said in closing, you said that percieved morality isn’t enough (to paraphrase). How true. Perceptions can be easily skewed when we’re so busy trying to get what we want rather than weighing the effects if we do get what we want. I don’t see many people (save mostly but Christians and a few others) actually taking the time to try to see what the consequences will be if gay people are given benefits and the government-recognized “right” to marry.

Be careful what you ask for…you might get it…and a lot of what you didn’t bargain for. It won’t be pretty.

@CelestialTeapot - I read the original reply you sent me as it was sent to my email account and I must say, all you’re doing is proving my point. Even the USA’s Constitution is based upon a standard of moral law that existed prior to our nation even being a collection of colonies.

And example would be like me saying that I want to run a stop sign because I say it should be my right to do so. I don’t want to stop. I want to do it my way. The thing is, in as far as my life goes, for as long as I’ve existed in this world, the laws of the road and the stop sign have always been in place long before I ever was. Just because I have my own personal life does not mean I am simply free to do as I please in regards to how I will drive.

Once again, so it is true with our nation. Our nation came to be after the moral standard was already in place. In fact, with our Constitution and our Declaration of Independance, both reference moral standards in order to justify themeselves. Is it not the Declaration (correct me if I’m wrong, I’m always getting these things mixed up) that says “inalienable rights”? This suggests something that existed prior to the Declaration. It’s saying that these rights existed prior.

So what I’m saying now is what standard PRIOR to our nation even being a blip in the history archives does our nation base its ideas for right and wrong upon? All the court cases you referenced were rulings that were supposedly made in accordance with the ultimate moral law.

If God does not exist, in terms of the argument regarding Him, then how do we determine that humans have certain, basic, undeniable rights? Who set the standard and how do we determine which standard is the right one when so many people have various ideas of what that standard should be.

So a recap: our nation’s own laws are built on a standard that existed prior to our nation. So using our Constitution as a basis to judge right and wrong will only lead to error. This has been shown true in such cases as the court examples you provided earlier. Obviously, our own nation has not managed to provide a perfect frame work for perfect morality. Next any time someone says “that’s not fair” or “things should be this way” they are making a reference to a standard that already existed prior to their claim. The question is, does that standard to which they make reference to actually exist? You state that humans who choose the gay lifestyle have a right to certain benefits. Okay then. Show me that ultimate standard that says, no matter what anyone else says, gay people should have these benefits. Since I’ve already shown you that our government cannot provide these rights (merely uphold or try to deny them), WHO says that they should have them?

You see, this goes much deeper than mere rights. As I’m sure you know, this matter involves the definition of marriage. To know what the definition is, we need to understand the purpose of marriage (and I’m actually writing a blog series on the matter which you may find very enlightening). Furthermore, we need to consider the actual consquences of allowing gay marriage to be allowed. So concerned are many people about denying such benefits that few even think about what will happen if we do. Like the boy with the cookie in my prior comment, little does the boy think about what will happen once he gets his way. If all he gets is what he wants, he’ll have no room for what he needs…such as a healthy dinner which will keep him from getting sick.

Suffice to say, basing your ideas for right and wrong upon our government’s laws and allowances (especially when it’s been shown that our own government’s ways has been found to be majorly faulty over the last 200+ years) is setting yourself up for a gross failing.

As I said before…be careful what you wish for. You won’t like the results.