Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Apr 9, 2014, 03:32 PM   #426
jrswizzle
macrumors 68040
 
jrswizzle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: McKinney, TX
Quote:
Originally Posted by lannister80 View Post
Don't forget both Christmas and Easter were Pagan holidays before being co-opted by the Christian church.
Hmm - sure.


Quote:
Sweet, they can have whatever reaction they want. But since this is a SECULAR country, they can keep their religious hangups off my nice, secular laws.
Agreed - secular country, not a theocratic government.


Quote:
Wait wait wait, does that mean only Christians can be "married", and other man/woman pairings under other religions/no religion at all are just "unions"?
Where does the "only" come from? That's exactly what I'm saying. What does it mean to you to be married? Guarantee it doesn't mean the same thing to me. That has to do with my religious bents. Now if you're upset about me saying Christians should steal the word marriage, I think that's idiotic.

The goal is to strip away the religious connotations - separate them from what the law views as "marriage" (simply The legal union of a couple as spouses. The basic elements of a marriage are: (1) the parties' legal ability to marry each other, (2) mutual consent of the parties, and (3) a marriage contract as required by law.).

It's a UNION. Any marriage is a UNION. Someone said something about "separate but equal". I think that SHOULD be the case - only I think the part that should be separate should be religious MARRIAGES from lawful unions.
__________________
Apple: iPhone 5C, iPhone 5S
Android: Motorola Moto G
Windows: Nokia Lumia 520
Tablet: iPad mini retina, iPad Air
jrswizzle is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 9, 2014, 03:35 PM   #427
Eraserhead
macrumors G4
 
Eraserhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrswizzle View Post
Hmm - sure.
I presume you're agreeing as lannister80 is right .
__________________
If they have to tell you every day they are fair you can bet they arent, if they tell you they are balanced then you should know they are not - Don't Hurt me
Eraserhead is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 9, 2014, 03:37 PM   #428
hulugu
macrumors 68000
 
hulugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: the faraway towns
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrswizzle View Post
Sure, but I'm talking about a perception of God as a father as well. One who cares for mankind - there's a verse in the Bible that talks about God doing things to confuse the wise.
This idea has always seemed a little suspect. A little bit of "don't look behind the veil" from the priests.

Quote:
...Essentially, there are things no one can explain. It drives some people crazy, but we can't know everything. Especially when the very creation of the world happened outside of physical laws and our own understanding how things work.
This is an assumption. If we were made in God's image (literally or figuratively) aren't we able to understand eventually God's work?

In other words, if you're a father, do you create a puzzle with no solution or puzzle that's just out of reach?

Quote:
...I also believe God was nice enough to get us something pretty to look at. While we are made in his image, the physical world and universe are also manifestations of his glory. I see God as an artist - both creative and working ahead.
It's always interesting to compare Christian belief of god with my own understanding of the myth. I'd expect God to manifest at all points in time at once, so he would be, in effect starting and finishing the Earth at the same time. You understand God as linear, which seems too literal to explain the Creator of the Universe.

The literal understanding of God makes no sense to me.

Quote:
...For instance, in that Venn Diagram - does a belief that homosexuality is a sin jive with the belief that same-sex marriage is fine?
Some Christians accept that their personal salvation is limited to themselves, so while they believe that homosexuality is a sin, they won't keep anyone from being gay or holding a same-sex marriage.

I think the new John Legend song is a crime against music, but I won't break your radio if you listen to it.

Quote:
...
If we simply allow marriage to be what it is (a manifestation of Christ's love for mankind embodied in a human relationship and a covenant between a man and woman to remain together and love each other), we both protect the values traditionalists seek to protect, while not demeaning any other forms of unions.
The problem with this is your extending your belief that marriage is a "manifestation of Christ's love for mankind..." and requiring other people to follow this same belief. Marriage is not yours, you just believe it is.

The other problem is a suspicion of the creation of "separate, but equal" law that could make civil unions less valuable than marriages.

I would argue that the license for marriage (along with legal structures) has always been a secular matter and that if churches demand this separation, a Christian couple should have two ceremonies. One under the eye of their minister and the other under the eye of the law. Creating some special exemption fails on all levels, except for satisfying the Christian understanding of the word marriage.

Quote:
...I mean, if you don't believe in the Bible, why should "marriage" matter? Basically, take the religion out of a marriage and you have civil unions (or whatever you want to call them). Anyone can be with anyone under the law.
The word marriage, BTW predates Christianity, so there's no fundamental reason for Christians to be able to seize the definition for themselves.
__________________
I look like a soldier; I feel like a thief
hulugu is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 9, 2014, 03:37 PM   #429
jrswizzle
macrumors 68040
 
jrswizzle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: McKinney, TX
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eraserhead View Post
I presume you're agreeing as lannister80 is right .
Yes - in that the words Christmas and Easter are not in any biblical accounts....lol. I guess for that matter, the word "marriage" doesn't appear in the creation story - only the outline for a union.

So I guess we'll take union and you take Marriage? Lol.....
__________________
Apple: iPhone 5C, iPhone 5S
Android: Motorola Moto G
Windows: Nokia Lumia 520
Tablet: iPad mini retina, iPad Air
jrswizzle is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 9, 2014, 03:46 PM   #430
lannister80
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Chicagoland
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrswizzle View Post
What does it mean to you to be married? Guarantee it doesn't mean the same thing to me. That has to do with my religious bents.
And that is totally cool with me. Marriage means MANY different things to different people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jrswizzle View Post
Now if you're upset about me saying Christians should steal the word marriage, I think that's idiotic.
The term marriage is not an exclusively Christian term. The concept of marriage is not an exclusively Christian concept. So why should Christian unions be "marriages" and everyone else's unions are "unions"?

Christians don't own the word marriage, so it's not yours to restrict the use of.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jrswizzle View Post
Someone said something about "separate but equal". I think that SHOULD be the case - only I think the part that should be separate should be religious MARRIAGES from lawful unions.
Words matter. If you want a special term for your union, you can call it a "Christian Marriage" or "Holy Matrimony" or add whatever modifier you want.

But you don't get to take away a secular term that is near and dear to the hearts of those who are married and then redefine it only for your use.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by jrswizzle View Post
Yes - in that the words Christmas and Easter are not in any biblical accounts....lol.
Total aside, but interesting: Easter comes from the name Ēostre, a Germanic Goddess (of spring/renewal, I think)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%92ostre
Quote:
"Ēostre or Ostara is a goddess in Germanic paganism who, by way of the Germanic month bearing her name, is the namesake of the festival of Easter.

Ēostre is attested solely by Bede in his 8th-century work De temporum ratione, where Bede states that during Ēosturmōnaž (the equivalent to the month of April) feasts were held in Eostre's honor among the pagan Anglo-Saxons, but had died out by the time of his writing, replaced by the Christian "Paschal month" (a celebration of the resurrection of Jesus)."
Hence all the spring/rebirth/renewal imagery in Easter celebrations (grass, baby bunnies, eggs, etc).
__________________
Early 2008 Mac Pro, 8x2.8GHz, 3.25TB, 18GB RAM
UnRAID NAS, 9TB storage, 3TB parity, 400GB cache
lannister80 is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 9, 2014, 03:51 PM   #431
jrswizzle
macrumors 68040
 
jrswizzle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: McKinney, TX
Quote:
Originally Posted by hulugu View Post
This idea has always seemed a little suspect. A little bit of "don't look behind the veil" from the priests.

This is an assumption. If we were made in God's image (literally or figuratively) aren't we able to understand eventually God's work?

In other words, if you're a father, do you create a puzzle with no solution or puzzle that's just out of reach?

It's always interesting to compare Christian belief of god with my own understanding of the myth. I'd expect God to manifest at all points in time at once, so he would be, in effect starting and finishing the Earth at the same time. You understand God as linear, which seems too literal to explain the Creator of the Universe.

The literal understanding of God makes no sense to me.

Some Christians accept that their personal salvation is limited to themselves, so while they believe that homosexuality is a sin, they won't keep anyone from being gay or holding a same-sex marriage.

I think the new John Legend song is a crime against music, but I won't break your radio if you listen to it.

The problem with this is your extending your belief that marriage is a "manifestation of Christ's love for mankind..." and requiring other people to follow this same belief. Marriage is not yours, you just believe it is.

The other problem is a suspicion of the creation of "separate, but equal" law that could make civil unions less valuable than marriages.

I would argue that the license for marriage (along with legal structures) has always been a secular matter and that if churches demand this separation, a Christian couple should have two ceremonies. One under the eye of their minister and the other under the eye of the law. Creating some special exemption fails on all levels, except for satisfying the Christian understanding of the word marriage.

The word marriage, BTW predates Christianity, so there's no fundamental reason for Christians to be able to seize the definition for themselves.
Well that's why faith is paramount. Could it be a means to control - to not tell us everything and say "you have to have faith". Sure - it could be. I have my doubts, like anyone. But I just don't see how the vastness of our universe could have come about any other way than via an omnipotent creator.

And if that's the case, wouldn't it be better to believe he's also loving and caring than cruel? Because if the latter is the truth, what's the point in anything?

As for the marriage issue - its not about the word. The problem is that word means different things for different people. So my belief that we should come up with two "words" aims to combat this. Because ultimately, hating each other over it solves nothing and politicians can use social issues (and the emotions they evict) as a means of control.

I agree with having two ceremonies. I may not have clearly dictated that earlier, but that's what I'm saying. Basically, we have marriage - in the secular world, its a union of two people who enter into contract to live their lives together and all that entails - tax breaks, benefits etc. This should apply to anyone who is of consenting age. Period.

The religious aspect of it is what causes problems for me. Religion has no bearing under our secular government anyhow. So allow for lawful unions to apply to all with all the same legal benefits they have now, and let religious folks get "married".

I'm not sure where the fear of inequality comes from as there's nothing about a religious marriage ceremony that affords any more benefit than getting hitched by the JP now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lannister80 View Post
The term marriage is not an exclusively Christian term. The concept of marriage is not an exclusively Christian concept. So why should Christian unions be "marriages" and everyone else's unions are "unions"?

Christians don't own the word marriage, so it's not yours to restrict the use of.


Words matter. If you want a special term for your union, you can call it a "Christian Marriage" or "Holy Matrimony" or add whatever modifier you want.

But you don't get to take away a secular term that is near and dear to the hearts of those who are married and then redefine it only for your use.
Sure - I suppose my deal with the words stems from the idea that the very legal definition of marriage is a civil union. So I fail to see why the term matters - especially if "sacrificing" the word gains millions of people the freedom to legally bind their lives to whomever's they want.

But hey - if I have to call it a "Christian Marriage", whatever. Ultimately, my point was to seperate the religious from the legal in order to take away the control the government has in playing different sides' emotions. Because that's ultimately what happens.

Quote:

Total aside, but interesting: Easter comes from the name Ēostre, a Germanic Goddess (of spring/renewal, I think)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%92ostre


Hence all the spring/rebirth/renewal imagery in Easter celebrations (grass, baby bunnies, eggs, etc).
Very interesting. Thanks for that! Where does the term "Christmas" come from?

EDIT: here ya go http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas#Etymology
__________________
Apple: iPhone 5C, iPhone 5S
Android: Motorola Moto G
Windows: Nokia Lumia 520
Tablet: iPad mini retina, iPad Air
jrswizzle is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 9, 2014, 04:21 PM   #432
Eraserhead
macrumors G4
 
Eraserhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrswizzle View Post
Very interesting. Thanks for that!
In most European languages Easter is called "Pascua" or similar. That comes from Passover.
__________________
If they have to tell you every day they are fair you can bet they arent, if they tell you they are balanced then you should know they are not - Don't Hurt me
Eraserhead is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 9, 2014, 05:18 PM   #433
chown33
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrswizzle View Post
And if that's the case, wouldn't it be better to believe he's also loving and caring than cruel? Because if the latter is the truth, what's the point in anything?
You left out the entire spectrum of possibility between caring and cruel. For example: indifference. I'm a big fan of indifference. Well, I would be if I cared enough.

And why does existence need to have "a point"? Maybe the problem lies in the human need for things to have a point. If you need a point so much, make one, or more to the point, live one, without the expectation of reward.
chown33 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 10, 2014, 01:23 AM   #434
jnpy!$4g3cwk
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
This thread has been around for a few months now, and, I still believe that mentally ill people are people and are ill.

I think their mental illnesses should be treated by doctors and specialists in treating mental illness, and, when their illnesses require that they be restrained, that they should be treated in a mental hospital, not a jail or prison.

And, an even more unpopular belief is that mental illness can befall anybody, including you and me. Very few people are willing to admit that "Mental illness could happen to me, through no fault of my own."
jnpy!$4g3cwk is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 10, 2014, 12:02 PM   #435
ElectronGuru
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Oregon, USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by jnpy!$4g3cwk View Post
I think their mental illnesses should be treated by doctors and specialists in treating mental illness, and, when their illnesses require that they be restrained, that they should be treated in a mental hospital, not a jail or prison.
We seem to have believed that by taking away the carrot (care) that the mentally ill would respond by not wanting the stick (destitution). That didn't work so we applied another stick (incarceration). That didn't work so we are applying a carrot+stick combo (incarcerated treatment), which if done correctly will look an awful lot like the institutions we disbanded in the first place. With just two important differences:

Incarcerated treatment costs more than treatment
Voters are more willing to pay if incarceration is included

So we pay more and don't actually get more but we also feel better about it. So there's that.
__________________
MBP, IM, MM, IPM, IP, AT
ElectronGuru is offline   1 Reply With Quote


Reply
MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:49 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC