Comments
261 - 280 of 474 Comments Last updated May 21, 2009

“Fear causes hesitation”

Since: Mar 09

Holland, MI

#262 May 14, 2009
Amazarak wrote:
<quoted text>
To me, it is not an over reaction. That is how they interpreted the constitution back then. Am I wrong?? If I am, why the big struggle for black kids to go to the same school as white kids? Why all the murder? In god's name? They are not human, they are inferior! Sons of Cain! Nope. Just needed a law to tell people black people ARE the same.
To equate modifying marriage to allow for same-sex marriages and whatever other kind of marriage people can think of.

With the struggle of civil rights for minotiry and women laughable.

“love, loyalty, friendship”

Since: Sep 08

Dutchville

#263 May 14, 2009
Constitutional Mark wrote:
Amazarak, I would like to thank you and compliment you on your willingness and open-mindedness to discuss theology on a mature level, not sinking into name calling.
I think it makes for an very good discussion for all involved. It makes all of us think and study why we believe what we believe.
We may always disagree, but at least we can discuss it openly. I do get turned off by those certain others who jump in and will only denigrate those of us who do believe in God. You do not do that, despite disagreeing with us.
Agree! Amazarak may be a heathen (just kidding babe), but she is really wonderful person (that's the truth)...

“Go Red Wings!!!”

Since: Oct 07

Plainfield Township MI

#264 May 14, 2009
My humble opinion, but if "people of faith" put as much time and energy helping those who are in need, and less time protesting gay marriage, and picketing movies, I think the world would be a better place. If God does not like homosexuals, let's let him take care of the "problem." I prefer to live and let live, I know many people who are gay, and they are much more tolerant than many of my friends who go to church and are intolerant of anything that goes against what they are told to believe.

“Fear causes hesitation”

Since: Mar 09

Holland, MI

#265 May 14, 2009
Bobbiez wrote:
My humble opinion, but if "people of faith" put as much time and energy helping those who are in need, and less time protesting gay marriage, and picketing movies, I think the world would be a better place. If God does not like homosexuals, let's let him take care of the "problem." I prefer to live and let live, I know many people who are gay, and they are much more tolerant than many of my friends who go to church and are intolerant of anything that goes against what they are told to believe.
US Citizens "people of "faith" give more money, energy and resources to the needy then anything other demographic in the world.

And Perez Hilton certainly does not represent tolerance of other people's beliefs.
Mark

Byron Center, MI

#266 May 14, 2009
Constitutional Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not sure I can answer that, because I know God and His Word exist and His condemnation of it.
In reality, the world would not exist if God did not exist so I can't answer it.
Go ahead, tell me I copped out. Maybe I did, but I can't pretend. Let me think on it.
The 'In Reality' sentence is probably more brilliant than most on here realize. But I would have used 'willed it' instead of 'exist'

Because of God's will, we exist. Not live, exist. He created the universe from nothing. We would be nothing, not dead, but nothing.

Ahem...back to the 'spirit' word.

As far as 'knowing' God's mind. Amaz, we are like a newborn 'knowing' a parents mind. But he left us hints, and those that knew him directly. The Apostles (teachers) and the Disciples (learners).

Agree, Amaz may be a blessing in disguise, and simply by taking on the role of devil's advocate be the nudge we needed.

As far as 'gay marraige' and denying religious beliefs. It would be similar to denying rain is wet.

“think for yourself”

Since: Aug 08

GR

#267 May 14, 2009
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>Man's silly...and the folly continues.
Got a book for you to check out from the library if you are interested.'Theology for Beginners' by FJ Sheed. If you cannot find it in the library, they have it at the Catholic bookstore in the 600 block of diamond across from the Church. Do me a favor and 'let go' while reading it and just do as the writer suggests if he says read the bible, read it. If it says refer back a few chapters, go back and reread that chapter.
Yes he is a 'man' writing a book but you will be happy to hear he and his wife, Maisie Ward, founded the publishing house Sheed and Ward. Oh darn his name went first ;)
Mark, Mark, Mark...

When I say written by 'man', I mean mankind. And I thank you for the reference, but I would believe the book you recomended to be a bit bias towards catholic beliefs. They will not say anything to go against any beliefs the church has.

So, when I say that these books are a compilation of many different books and authors, I am not wrong. And the differences of the stories (Matt, Mark, Luke Johmn) are huge. They all tell a much different story. Some tell of the last supper on different days, if any at all. And then, if you look into the life span of people then, you may come to the conclusion that some of those authors never knew Jesus at all. Then, the changing of the texts over the years by scribes, trying to fix mistakes, or trying to make it make sense, or just making a simple textual error. So, then, how can this be described the word of god at all, when we have no "real first copy".

Now, I may believe in something that happened to create the world we know, but not this thing that has written all of these laws that tend to contradict one another time after time. And the research I have been doing tells a much different story that you will not find in any theology book.

“think for yourself”

Since: Aug 08

GR

#268 May 14, 2009
Constitutional Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I agree, RESEARCH.
Noah was a descendant of Seth, not Cain.(Gen 5)
And God would avenge anyone who harmed Cain sevenfold not ten fold.
Sorry Amazarak, your ignorance is showing.
One other thing, we don't know whether Cain was a child of God, but it appears that he was not. We don't read of him asking for forgiveness at any point in the Bible.
He is in fact the great etc grandfather of Cain. If you read, you will see that Cain begat Enoch, that walked with god, and god took him, that begat so and so that begat Seth that begat Noah. Not sure on the exact order, but that gives you an idea. I will look it up for you if you like.

Sorry about getting the numbers mixed up. But even so, ten or seven, they would have been avenged.

And about Cain asking for forgiveness, the story reflects upon, say, the first death. That Cain didn't even know that Abel could die. Yes, he wanted to hurt him, but kill, that was not a part of 'life' yet as the story goes. And Cain being distraught about the death, I believe, would be a form of asking for forgiveness. But then, the next question would be, if Cain has to say to god, that people will harm him, who are those people? And where does his wife show up if they are the only people there on earth? Or is it truly just a story, reflecting on the death of someone? Like an Aesops Fable, in a sense. Moral of the story.
JohnnyTulip

United States

#269 May 14, 2009
Who cares if gay people want to get married. Some probably would go to churches and donate. That is just another way for the church to generate revenue. Gay people are fine, it is the flaming gay people that I can't stand. They just want everyone to know. I don't go around screaming I am a heterosexual yeah. A lot of Priests are gay. Who would not want to have sex with a women? Plus their sexuality is so pinned up they abuse young boys. It is time to dump the law banning sodomoy. Then my wife better look out. JK

“think for yourself”

Since: Aug 08

GR

#270 May 14, 2009
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>'In As far as 'knowing' God's mind. Amaz, we are like a newborn 'knowing' a parents mind. But he left us hints, and those that knew him directly. The Apostles (teachers) and the Disciples (learners).
Agree, Amaz may be a blessing in disguise, and simply by taking on the role of devil's advocate be the nudge we needed.
As far as 'gay marraige' and denying religious beliefs. It would be similar to denying rain is wet.
Then, where, I ask, are these 'enlightened' ones now? Are they the only people to ever be touched by this god? If god changed his mind about the flood, why wouldn't he change his mind about other things? Or, is it that we are out of that superstitious age, that, today, if anyone claims to have god speaking to them to write a book, they would be called crazy?

I have no problem being called the devil's advocate, if that is what you guys wanna call me. I guess those are the titles you get for thinking for yourself, and finding certain things wrong with all the hubbub.

As far as gay marriage goes, I have yet to find an excuse that does not involve religion. So I will stick to my beliefs that religion is infringing on basic human rights. Because if it weren't for this 'book', there would be no other way to condemn it.
Mark

Byron Center, MI

#271 May 14, 2009
Bobbiez wrote:
My humble opinion, but if "people of faith" put as much time and energy helping those who are in need, and less time protesting gay marriage, and picketing movies, I think the world would be a better place. If God does not like homosexuals, let's let him take care of the "problem." I prefer to live and let live, I know many people who are gay, and they are much more tolerant than many of my friends who go to church and are intolerant of anything that goes against what they are told to believe.
People have free will to sin or not to sin. People have free will to vote how they wish. Cultures change and new problems arise. The Church's teachings provide guidance as to what Christ would think. Those that agree with that way of thinking are the ones proponants wish to oppress.

It is understandable how a Church can teach a certain way and a civil society can turn another. What is not understandable is why a portion of society would turn away and then expect the Church too also.

To your point of bad people. Sure ok, their are lots of them. But I still gotta believe, most of us aspire to be virtuous. We want to believe in the goodness of people, we want to see Jesus in people. We want to see Jesus in ourselves.

Can we see virtue in someone that is homosexual? Yes, certainly. Homosexuality does not define who the person is. It is an ACT of free will. According to the Church a sin. Do religious people sin, even a pope? Yes, certainly, for exactly the same reason. Sin is an act, and we are all born into original sin needing at-one-ment.

The difference here is sanctifying grace, and forgiveness. And what 'sins' we are going to legislate into society.

A devout person wishes to become more devout and move away from sin, and help others move away from sin. For this person to not have a voice in the civil discourse of a vote is totalitarianism. It is in seeking virtue, or dismissing it, that the difference lies.

In one breath you say 'live and let live' but in the next you judge those that don't help people suffering. That in itself is a contradiction.

Proponants do not wish to 'live and let live' they wish to impose acceptance of acts on society that many find intolerable (i.e. abortion, where the victim is not allowed to 'live' at all).

“think for yourself”

Since: Aug 08

GR

#272 May 14, 2009
TheBodhiZaffa wrote:
<quoted text>
To equate modifying marriage to allow for same-sex marriages and whatever other kind of marriage people can think of.
With the struggle of civil rights for minotiry and women laughable.
Sure, laughable. Tell that to the people who are harrassed just for their sexual preference, even killed. Tell that to the couples that cannot help care for their partner legally because they cannot visit them in the ICU. Tell that to someone who has lived through the discrimination, now just not by color or gender, but by who you go to bed with. This is now the newest form of discrimination, whether you think it is laughable or not.
Mark

Byron Center, MI

#273 May 14, 2009
Amazarak wrote:
<quoted text>
Mark, Mark, Mark...
When I say written by 'man', I mean mankind. And I thank you for the reference, but I would believe the book you recomended to be a bit bias towards catholic beliefs. They will not say anything to go against any beliefs the church has.
So, when I say that these books are a compilation of many different books and authors, I am not wrong. And the differences of the stories (Matt, Mark, Luke Johmn) are huge. They all tell a much different story. Some tell of the last supper on different days, if any at all. And then, if you look into the life span of people then, you may come to the conclusion that some of those authors never knew Jesus at all. Then, the changing of the texts over the years by scribes, trying to fix mistakes, or trying to make it make sense, or just making a simple textual error. So, then, how can this be described the word of god at all, when we have no "real first copy".
Now, I may believe in something that happened to create the world we know, but not this thing that has written all of these laws that tend to contradict one another time after time. And the research I have been doing tells a much different story that you will not find in any theology book.
but you dismiss the theology book because of your perceived bias(plural)...hmm and the history channel doesn't have bias? ;)

“Fear causes hesitation”

Since: Mar 09

Holland, MI

#274 May 14, 2009
Amazarak wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure, laughable. Tell that to the people who are harrassed just for their sexual preference, even killed. Tell that to the couples that cannot help care for their partner legally because they cannot visit them in the ICU. Tell that to someone who has lived through the discrimination, now just not by color or gender, but by who you go to bed with. This is now the newest form of discrimination, whether you think it is laughable or not.
This discussion is about GAY MARRIAGE. Not CIVIL UNIONS.

Having CIVIL UNIONS pretty much removes all the discrimination you describe above.

And for hate attacks, gays are not special in that sense, there have been people that are killed for being black, white, jewish, catholic, rich and poor.

The concept that keeping marriage, which has been between a man and a women for hundreds of years, is now the newest form of discrimation CHEAPEN'S and MINIMIZES the REAL discrimation that has taken place in the world.
Mark

Byron Center, MI

#275 May 14, 2009
Back to the word 'spirit' oh fallen one...

“think for yourself”

Since: Aug 08

GR

#276 May 14, 2009
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>but you dismiss the theology book because of your perceived bias(plural)...hmm and the history channel doesn't have bias? ;)
Tell you what. I will read that book, if you read Suns of God by Acharya S.

“think for yourself”

Since: Aug 08

GR

#277 May 14, 2009
TheBodhiZaffa wrote:
<quoted text>
This discussion is about GAY MARRIAGE. Not CIVIL UNIONS.
Having CIVIL UNIONS pretty much removes all the discrimination you describe above.
And for hate attacks, gays are not special in that sense, there have been people that are killed for being black, white, jewish, catholic, rich and poor.
The concept that keeping marriage, which has been between a man and a women for hundreds of years, is now the newest form of discrimation CHEAPEN'S and MINIMIZES the REAL discrimation that has taken place in the world.
Explain to me, please, how a man getting married to a man, or viceversa, CHEAPEN'S your marriage. Slavery has happened for thousands upon thousands of years, but people decided that really isn't such a great idea. People change, time changes, the world changes. Are you ready?

“think for yourself”

Since: Aug 08

GR

#278 May 14, 2009
Mark wrote:
Back to the word 'spirit' oh fallen one...
Flattery gets you everywhere!:)

“think for yourself”

Since: Aug 08

GR

#279 May 14, 2009
TheBodhiZaffa wrote:
<quoted text>
This discussion is about GAY MARRIAGE. Not CIVIL UNIONS.
Having CIVIL UNIONS pretty much removes all the discrimination you describe above.
And for hate attacks, gays are not special in that sense, there have been people that are killed for being black, white, jewish, catholic, rich and poor.
The concept that keeping marriage, which has been between a man and a women for hundreds of years, is now the newest form of discrimation CHEAPEN'S and MINIMIZES the REAL discrimation that has taken place in the world.
And also, are you now cheapening and minimizing the affects of this form of discrimination, because you do not see the importance it may have in someone else's life? Women may now vote, blacks are no longer slaves, but do you really think that that made all that discrimination just go away? No, it sure hasn't. So, why not legalize same sex marriage, so these people can now say they are married, not that they are in a civil union. Why not?

“Fear causes hesitation”

Since: Mar 09

Holland, MI

#280 May 14, 2009
Amazarak wrote:
<quoted text>
Explain to me, please, how a man getting married to a man, or viceversa, CHEAPEN'S your marriage. Slavery has happened for thousands upon thousands of years, but people decided that really isn't such a great idea. People change, time changes, the world changes. Are you ready?
That's not what I said.

Describing "gay marriage" as civil rights descrimination CHEAPENS the real civils rights descrimination that existed (exists) in the US.

“Fear causes hesitation”

Since: Mar 09

Holland, MI

#281 May 14, 2009
Amazarak wrote:
<quoted text>
And also, are you now cheapening and minimizing the affects of this form of discrimination, because you do not see the importance it may have in someone else's life? Women may now vote, blacks are no longer slaves, but do you really think that that made all that discrimination just go away? No, it sure hasn't. So, why not legalize same sex marriage, so these people can now say they are married, not that they are in a civil union. Why not?
What are you talking about? I haven't said descrimination has gone away, in fact - I acknowledged that it still exists.

Why not just legalize gay marriage? Why not just be happy with Civil Unions?

We have to change the 200+ year definition of marriage so gay people are able to say "I'm MARRIED"?

Couldn't a gay person still use the same terms - husband / wife in thier lives, while having a Civil Union with all the legal benefits?

Couldn't we all just accept that and move on?

Or do we need to redefine one of the oldest traditions of the human race?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Grand Rapids Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
'We Don't Have a Strategy' to Fight ISIS t 6 hr Phil 1
The cheerleaders with their tight skirts are v... 6 hr Phil 1
why war with isis? 7 hr Phil 17
College football roundup: Ohio State starts the... (Sep '13) 8 hr Buffalo Bull 1,326
Liberty University Law School Dean: Gay Marriag... 13 hr Batch 37 Pain Is ... 314
Plafkin Brothers-McDonalds, Home of the Famous ... (Jun '13) Wed Kelly Hadd 8
Cousins hope to open Grand Rapids' first hostel... Wed Faith 3
•••
•••
Grand Rapids Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Grand Rapids Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Grand Rapids People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Grand Rapids News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Grand Rapids
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••