Patriotism

[Amazon 7]

Thank you for putting the whole discusssion in retrospect Darius.

I may not always agree with the direction that the country is taking but I for one would fight to maintain the freedoms we have here.

Far too many people in this country fail to see the actual diversity that we have here. The US is a collection of people from ALL COUNTRIES and PEOPLE on this planet. To fail to see that is the greatest slap in the face to all other Americans, because it lessens all of us.

[pajarito 0]

Debating the reliability of the Bible text is a HUGE topic of conversation. Probably better start a new one, this one is already way off track.

[pajarito 0]

The commands of the Old Testament are divided generally into moral law, ceremonial law and civil law. The moral law (e.g., the 10 commandments) remain in effect and few people would question that. The ceremonial law (sacrificing 2 oxen, etc.) was fulfilled in Jesus' sacrificial death and the New Testament teaches that it is not binding anymore. The civil law (stoning for adultry, etc.) was the law of the nation of Israel, which operated as a Theocracy, and is not the civil law of any other nation.

The argument about gay marriage is a deep, dark hole in the ground from which there is no escape until there is some common ground from which the discussions can spring. I can agree that we're not going to stone homosexuals, just as Jesus didn't pick up a stone and start stoning the woman caught in adultry. Jesus didn't condone her conduct (in fact, he said to her "Go and sin no more"); it's simply that everyone in the crowd (other than Jesus) was also guilty under Jesus' standard (if you've looked at a woman and lusted after her in your heart, you've committed adultry). Interestingly, stoning for adultry was not acceptable under Roman law at that time and Jesus would have actually violated the civil law if he agreed to the stoning.

If one doe not agree that homosexual behavior is morally wrong, then an argument about whether society should accept homosexual marriage is pretty much going to have to sit on the shifting sands of whatever is "acceptable" to society. I think the past 30 or 40 years have demonstrated exactly how quickly society will slide down that slippery slope - e.g., euthanasia, child abuse, pedophilia, pornography, divorce, abortion, spousal abuse, murder, assault, etc. Depending on the topic, most folks, when confronted with the ugly statistics, will agree that we need to draw some fast and hard lines as to what conduct is criminal. Unfortunately, without a biblical basis, we're stuck with the "whatever society wants" standard.

Bottom line is the goal of the homosexual community isn’t just marriage and state benefits. It’s the normalization of an obscene practice. Define marriage as the union of one man and one woman and be done with it.

[hungarianchick 0]

Just because there are a lot of international students go to U.S. schools doesn't mean that it is the best system. They may have more resources, but the standards and the knowledge being passed to the students are not necessarily the best.
There are a lot of international students in hungarian medical schools which are amongst the best in the world, not to mention far more affordable.

"I love cooking with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food."

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

>Well, your perspective is refreshing as usual, but where do we draw the line?

Common sense. Personally, I believe in most laws concerning behavior between strangers - laws against assault, murder, robbery etc. They're pretty reasonable. Laws that try to tell you what two consenting adults can do with each other are unreasonable. I won't obey any law that tells me what my wife and I can or can't do with each other.

Does that include spousal abuse? Be careful of the broad brush.

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

It doesn't take a very serious student of history to see the flaws of any "Faith based"....well anything!

We all have faith in some thing or another.

. . =(_8^(1)

[Amazon 7]

Quote

The civil law (stoning for adultry, etc.) was the law of the nation of Israel, which operated as a Theocracy, and is not the civil law of any other nation.

Of thousands of Old Testament passages, only two make explicit reference to homosexual acts; Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. Both of these passages are a part of the Levitical holiness code which is not kept by any Christian group. If it were enforced, almost every Christian would be excommunicated or executed. It has been logically argued that science and progress have made many of the Levitical laws irrelevant for us. For example, Tim LaHaye states that, although Levitical laws prohibit intercourse during menstruation, medical authorities do not view it as harmful; and, therefore, it should not be viewed as sinful. He further explains, "those laws were given 3,500 years ago before showers and baths were convenient, before tampons, disinfectants, and other improved means of sanitation had been invented". With that, LaHaye makes this law irrelevant and rightly so. Ironically, though, in his book, The Unhappy Gay, the Levitical laws are one of the chief cornerstones. Much of the holiness code is now irrelevant for us as moral law. Thus, having children which was of exceptional importance to the early Hebrews is now made less relevant by overpopulation, just as the prohibition against eating pork and shell-fish has been made irrelevant by refrigeration.

The Bible never addresses the issue of homosexual love, but has several examples of same-sex love. David's love for Jonathan was said to exceed his love for women. Ruth's relationship with Naomi is certainly an example of a deep, bonding love. The Bible does value love between persons of the same sex.

In the context of the New Testament there is no record of Jesus saying anything about homosexuality. This ought to strike you as very odd in light of the great threat to Christianity, family life, and the American way that some would have us believe homosexuality is.
Jesus saw injustice and religious hypocrisy as a far greater threat to the Realm of God.

[freefallfreak 0]

Wrong, BillVon...I checked with both manifest and the JM...He didn't tell the whole story, so it was a rightous call on my part. Check your facts before stating something you don't know about.

"Upon seeing the shadow of a pigeon, one must resist the urge to look up."

[pajarito 0]

We don’t and I’m glad that we don’t live in a country where a particular religion is mandatory or that they make the rules. We live in a Democracy where all religions or lack there of are tolerated. However, the vast majority of people in this country believe one God in one form or another. Therefore, people of “faith” get to be in political office and “make some of the rules.” The founding fathers never intended to take God or religion out of government. That’s misinterpretation of “Separation of Church and State.”

I can’t nor do I want to try and FORCE you to do or believe anything. You have as much right to believe the way you do as I do. I hope that these discussions, however, prompt people to think about these topics and take them seriously. They are that important.

One more comment about the morals thing. Lots of people derive their morals from themselves. Therefore, everybody lives according to their own standards of what they feel is right or wrong. Others derive theirs from a higher source “Faith Based” and, therefore, there is common ground.

[Luv2Fall 0]

Would you be so kind as to (or anyone) explain, to me, what Paul meant in the following two verses as found in the Book of Romans? Is it not referencing same-sex sex? I get the impression that such is contrary to the laws of nature.


1:26
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

1:27
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet

[benny 0]

Quote

Wrong, BillVon...I checked with both manifest and the JM...He didn't tell the whole story, so it was a rightous call on my part. Check your facts before stating something you don't know about.

Again, since you continue to insist on bringing this up in public forums, why don't you enlighten us as to what I omitted?

Never go to a DZ strip show.

[Michele 1]

Jeanne, the The Cathedral of Hope is a very interesting website. I am, however, not sure I agree with everything on it. Some of their dissertations are interesting and thought compelling, however.

I am not sure what this part of the conversation has to do with Patriotism, though...maybe you all should start a new thread?



Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[pajarito 0]

See from my previous statement to you how I describe the various laws of the Old Testament and give explanation of why they wouldn’t be accepted today. I’m not disputing anything your repeating back to me in your first paragraph. It’s kind of what I was referring to before.

New Testament
Romans 1 26-27 (Paul)
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

[WeakMindedFool 0]

I agree that most people in this country believe in one God or another. I think the founding fathers did envision a country where the free exercise of religion remained free. Free being the operative word here. If you, or even the majority of folks out there find homosexuality moraly repugnant. that's fine. It's when you attempt to limit the state from making a civil distiction (such as marrige) based on that morality that we are at odds. It's not a lifestyle that I would choose for myself. I may, however, have some things about my lifestyle that you may find moraly questionable. If I wish to remain free, if you wish to remain free to excercise your personal faith, the only way to safegaurd those freedoms is to insure them for others. You find yourself in the majority, right now. It takes very little to change the political and social landscape. You may find yourself in the minority eventually, and if you do will your rights be protected? I'm not asking you to accept gay marrige as a good thing, I'm asking that you not force your version of morality on those of us that don't share it.

Faith in a holy cause is to a considerable extent a substitute for lost faith in ourselves.
-Eric Hoffer -
Check out these Videos

[nbblood 0]

Darius,
Thank-you. What a terrific perspective. I agree with others when they say that you have truly captured the spirit of this thread.

For those of you that may have missed it, please take the time to check this one out. Edited to add: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=923105;search_string=patriotism;#923105
(sorry I don't know how to make it just say "clicky")

Who knows, maybe we can get this back on track.

Blues,
Nathan

Blues,
Nathan

If you wait 'til the last minute, it'll only take a minute.

[kallend 1,649]

Quote

I agree that most people in this country believe in one God or another. I think the founding fathers did envision a country where the free exercise of religion remained free. Free being the operative word here. If you, or even the majority of folks out there find homosexuality moraly repugnant. that's fine. It's when you attempt to limit the state from making a civil distiction (such as marrige) based on that morality that we are at odds. It's not a lifestyle that I would choose for myself. I may, however, have some things about my lifestyle that you may find moraly questionable. If I wish to remain free, if you wish to remain free to excercise your personal faith, the only way to safegaurd those freedoms is to insure them for others. You find yourself in the majority, right now. It takes very little to change the political and social landscape. You may find yourself in the minority eventually, and if you do will your rights be protected? I'm not asking you to accept gay marrige as a good thing, I'm asking that you not force your version of morality on those of us that don't share it.

I have totally different grounds on which I object to homosexual "marriages". It is a misuse of a perfectly good word in the language that has for centuries had a very specific meaning. That meaning is NOT obsolete.

The hijacking of words to satisfy any agenda is inappropriate. "Gay" used to mean something pleasant to everyone 40 years ago. That word has been rendered essentially useless in its original meaning since it was hijacked to refer to homosexuality. I doubt many kids have ever heard "gay" used to mean anything except homosexual.

I have no moral objection to homosexuality, and no objection to homosexuals having any form of civil or religious union and rights that a heterosexual couple is entitled to. However, they should invent a new word for it. "Marriage" is taken.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

Laws that try to tell you what two consenting adults can do with each other are unreasonable.

Does that include spousal abuse? Be careful of the broad brush.

I don't speak for billvon - he's quite capable of doing that himself.

However, even though I didn't write that statement, I managed to notice that he said "consenting" adults.

If both spouses consent to the behavior, then I don't think it can be considered "abuse".

[pajarito 0]

> In reference to:
> The Bible never addresses the issue of
> homosexual love, but has several examples of
> same-sex love. David's love for Jonathan was said > to exceed his love for women. Ruth's relationship > with Naomi is certainly an example of a deep,
> bonding love. The Bible does value love between > persons of the same sex.

There are also different kinds of love. They are obviously referring to spiritual love. Not with homosexual connotation. I love my Dad. I love my two best friends from childhood. I love their Dad too. I'm not homosexual. There's a difference.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

I love my Dad. I love my two best friends from childhood. I love their Dad too. I'm not homosexual. There's a difference.

*cough* aggot *cough*

j/k

[Luv2Fall 0]

The original language makes a huge difference........for instance - in the NT alone - the world love has three entirely different meanings......all spelled differently......yet translated into the English language as "love".

[pajarito 0]

I'm 34, been married for 8 years, have three kids, and served 17 years in the Army (Special Forces). I'm very secure in my masculinity. Your comments, in person, might lead to some aggression. In any case, I think yours was a "personal attack" in the context of this forum. I was censored the other day for calling a person a spineless, jellyfish, freeloader for their lack of patriotism and sense of duty to their country. I think I can tell from your comment, however, that there is probably a vast lack of experience in life and maturity.

[benny 0]

Quote

I'm 34, been married for 8 years, have three kids, and served 17 years in the Army (Special Forces). I'm very secure in my masculinity. Your comments, in person, might lead to some aggression. In any case, I think yours was a "personal attack" in the context of this forum. I was censored the other day for calling a person a spineless, jellyfish, freeloader for their lack of patriotism and sense of duty to their country. I think I can tell from your comment, however, that there is probably a vast lack of experience in life and maturity.

It's quite obvious you haven't read too much of phillykev's writings, or it would be obvious to you that he was joking.

Never go to a DZ strip show.

[pajarito 0]

Ok...my bad...I'm new to this.
If that's the case, I stand corrected and am ready to play nice again... Sorry Phillykev!

[SkydiverRick 0]

It is, however, yet another way to gradually take God out of every institution we have in this country.

[kallend 1,649]

Quote

It is, however, yet another way to gradually take God out of every institution we have in this country.

The libs don't want morality to get in the way. They want the government to be the highest authority, not God.