[Suska]

Do you mean to imply that people weren't upstanding, truthful, and faithful prior to Christianity? That seems like quite a stretch.

I used the term character - that you inherited more than you admit to. Furthermore you inherited it because it was maintained by a church.

As for the progress of virtues I don't feel qualified to judge. Especially on the matter of prehistory but even on the matter of history the case is far from clear. That's probably a much longer conversation too and it should have it's own thread. As it related to the above claims I will just say this: for a long time the entire organization of European people consisted of religion. They instituted the form of marriage we've inherited for reasons of organization among other things. We used to think it was best for the community that everyone have a chance at marriage and family and things were arranged so that there was a chance for every man to have a wife and vice versa. Now we say it's a competition and if you get left out you're a loser. There are other problems but then we're getting into a critique of hedonism.

[pojut]

I used the term character - that you inherited more than you admit to. Furthermore you inherited it because it was maintained by a church.

OK, which means you're explicitely stating that those values are only around because of the Christian church, which is a load of bullshit. There's no way you honestly believe that.

As for the progress of virtues I don't feel qualified to judge. Especially on the matter of prehistory but even on the matter of history the case is far from clear. That's probably a much longer conversation too and it should have it's own thread. As it related to the above claims I will just say this: for a long time the entire organization of European people consisted of religion. They instituted the form of marriage we've inherited for reasons of organization among other things. We used to think it was best for the community that everyone have a chance at marriage and family and things were arranged so that there was a chance for every man to have a wife and vice versa. Now we say it's a competition and if you get left out you're a loser. There are other problems but then we're getting into a critique of hedonism.

I don't know who says it's a "competition", but I certainly don't think of it that way. It's something that just happens on its own. In the case of my own marriage, we did it primarily because it was a way for us to show our families the connection we have with each other.

[Drlee]

You can pretend all you like that your lifestyle isn't religious but it get its entire character from 2000 years of Christian civilization.

And Christianity got its entire character from some 3000 previous years of Jewish history. What is your point?

Look. I am a Christian. You claim to be a Christian and I take you at your word. Pojut is an agnostic. He does not believe in Jesus as the Son of God. You can't proclaim him a Christian based upon a history test. He follows his path and you will follow yours.

Why would a Christian marriage be more "sacred" than a non-Christian one. You want a Christian answer to the question of marriage. The only time Jesus mentioned sexuality at all was when He said:

Matthew 25

When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

Did you see the bold "all the nations"? Not just Christians? And how did he say they could earn eternal life? He was very specific.

This informs my belief in Christianity. We do not have a franchise on eternal life. Nor do we have an exclusive on righteousness. We have some very good stuff but we do not have all the very good stuff.

[Suska]

You claim to be a Christian and I take you at your word.

I certainly did not make that claim. Nor am I suggesting that pojut is Christian. You may read what I said; even an agnostic has ideas that are essentially religious and basically a good person in America is a defacto Christian based on the momentum of history alone.

Why would a Christian marriage be more "sacred" than a non-Christian one.

You really ought to be more careful. I'm not just babbling here. I'm probably near as old as you are and I've a lifetime of study of comparative religion - I am very careful about what I say - and you are not. There are many denominations and each has their version. Even a Civil Union is a defacto Christian ceremony based on the expectations surrounding it. My point .... For like the 10th time .... I say Marriage is a religious ceremony, and the government should have no part in it. Not because that inherently harms it, but because of the way it's being harmed by the political acrimony related to gay marriage.

Just seriously Drlee. You pump a lot of words out for someone who doesn't bother to read.

OK, which means you're explicitely stating that those values are only around because of the Christian church, which is a load of bullshit. There's no way you honestly believe that.

I didn't make the claim that without Christianity we could not have decent values by a common sense measure. I made the claim that the particular values and ways of life we have here in America have the momentum of millenia of Christianity behind them. The point being that the Catholic Church and related institutions are vessels that carry and improve the ideas we have about our values. The modern heathen acts like that's not a useful function but they fall back on the momentum of those values all the time and act like shutting that function down is a better idea.

[pojut]

My point .... For like the 10th time .... I say Marriage is a religious ceremony, and the government should have no part in it. Not because that inherently harms it, but because of the way it's being harmed by the political acrimony related to gay marriage.

Right, because the political acrimony related to dissolving the various tax breaks and other incentives given to married couples would be SO much better.

[pojut]

I made the claim that the particular values and ways of life we have here in America have the momentum of millenia of Christianity behind them.

Which means you are directly attributing those values and ways of life to Christianity. Christianity may carry their torch, but so are a lot of other religions; those values have been around a LOT longer than Christianity.

The point being that the Catholic Church and related institutions are vessels that carry and improve the ideas we have about our values.

Religion in general (and ESPECIALLY the Catholic Church) has/continues to have spent centuries torturing and murdering people for calling god a different name. Salvation and truth at the bloodied end of a spear? You go ahead and keep that, because I want nothing to do with it.

[Suska]

Right, because the political acrimony related to dissolving the various tax breaks and other incentives given to married couples would be SO much better.

There are no incentives or tax breaks really, in fact it depends on income disparity between couples but generally taxes are higher for married couples.

Which means you are directly attributing those values and ways of life to Christianity. Christianity may carry their torch, but so are a lot of other religions; those values have been around a LOT longer than Christianity.

No. Apparently what I said is too complex for you.

Religion in general (and ESPECIALLY the Catholic Church) has/continues to have spent centuries torturing and murdering people for calling god a different name. Salvation and truth at the bloodied end of a spear? You go ahead and keep that, because I want nothing to do with it.

You don't know what you're talking about. You have some really strange images about wicked religion that you need to investigate properly. So specify, who has done these things? When?

[pojut]

There are no incentives or tax breaks really, in fact it depends on income disparity between couples but generally taxes are higher for married couples.

Methinks you haven't done any research on the topic in the past decade or two.

In 1996, 42% of married taxpayers paid more because they were filing jointly than they would have if they had remained single according to a 1997 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis.[3] The average penalty among these couples was $1,380. Conversely, the same CBO analysis concluded that 51% of married couples paid less tax jointly than if they had not been married, with average savings of $1,300. The reason that one couple would receive a benefit while another would receive a penalty lay in whether the couple's individual incomes were disparate (resulting in a benefit) or roughly equal (resulting in a penalty).[4]

Since then, several pieces of legislation have been passed to do away with the penalties further. For example, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 introduced section 1(f)(8) to the Internal Revenue Code, which mitigates the marriage penalty effect in the lower tax brackets.[5] Section 1(f)(8) adjusts the ceiling of the 15% tax bracket for joint return filers relative to the ceiling of the 15 percent tax bracket for unmarried spouses.[5]

The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 accelerated the benefit to joint return filers by eliminating the marriage penalty for 2003 and 2004 and the Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004 extended the benefit to 2005–07.[5] Therefore, the marriage penalty in the lower tax brackets will be eliminated through 2010.[5] Unless reauthorized by Congress, however, the marriage penalty will return in 2011.[5] However, through passing those pieces of legislation, the tax system is now such that couples with disparate incomes will pay less tax than they would have paid as two single taxpayers.[

You don't know what you're talking about. You have some really strange images about wicked religion that you need to investigate properly. So specify, who has done these things? When?

Ever hear of a little something called the Crusades? How about the Salem Witch Trials? Or how about the Sacking of Magdeburg? Note that these were not mere uprisings; these were things carried out by the church.

[Suska]

So wait, when I go to church this Sunday we're gonna sack Magdeburg and burn a witch? That's what we do at church, I had no idea! I can see why you don't want anything to do with it. We should also eliminate government entirely for WW2, the holocaust, and corporations... After all who is innocent if you just stretch the association far enough? You're a human, humans have done some pretty rotten things and it's time for you to pay.

So you think earning less overall is worth getting a tax break?

[pojut]

So wait, when I go to church this Sunday we're gonna sack Magdeburg and burn a witch? That's what we do at church, I had no idea!

So those morals and values still matter after all these thousands of years, but killing millions of people in the name of god just a few hundred years ago can be brushed under the rug and doesn't matter?

So you think earning less overall is worth getting a tax break?

I can't speak for anyone else, but we paid $4300 less in taxes between us the year after we got married, even though our income only went up by $2500 total. Last year, we got nearly $5000 on our Federal tax return. We have no children.

[Suska]

You exaggerate and conflate communal hysteria and political aggression with institutional religion. I am accountable for my behavior and church is religion in practice.

I really can't be bothered to research taxes. I don't believe it's near as simple as you make it sound and the last time I researched the matter that's not what I found, but I'll concede the point and it just reinforces my overall objective; to get government out of religious affairs.

[pojut]

You exaggerate and conflate communal hysteria and political aggression with institutional religion. I am accountable for my behavior and church is religion in practice.

I'm not exaggerating anything. You told me to specify when blood has been spilled by the church, and I provided three examples.

Now, my point was that I don't want to associate with something that has that in its past, regardless of what it may be now. Reading back on my posts, I didn't make that too clear, so I can see where you're coming from. Still, once again as before: I did what you asked me to do, and you responded by insulting me.

I really can't be bothered to research taxes.

So you partake in arguing points without valid data to back up what you're saying. I'll be sure to keep that in mind during future conversations.

[Suska]

my point was that I don't want to associate with something that has that in its past,

You wanna talk about "secular" atrocities now? lol gimme a break. Suppose I went to a Mormon church, should I feel dirty about what a corrupt Catholic Pope did 1000 years ago? Do you also feel dirty about being an American for what Charles Manson did? Or being white for what what Hitler did?

You freely slander sacred things, but you sure as hell can't take it when someone objects.

[pojut]

You wanna talk about "secular" atrocities now? lol gimme a break. Suppose I went to a Mormon church, should I feel dirty about what a corrupt Catholic Pope did 1000 years ago? Do you also feel dirty about being an American for what Charles Manson did? Or being white for what what Hitler did?

You freely slander sacred things, but you sure as hell can't take it when someone objects.

Last time I checked, I didn't belong to either the Manson Family or the Nazi Party. I'm also pretty sure I'm not Morman, although I wish you were; I've found them to be one of the more down to Earth and sensible christian sects.

[Suska]

You're having a problem with me personally because you led an attack prepared with nothing but self-righteousness and bigotry. You'll see no quarter from me till I'm bored with the fact you can't even follow what I'm telling you half the time.

[pojut]

You're having a problem with me personally because you led an attack prepared with nothing but self-righteousness and bigotry. You'll see no quarter from me till I'm bored with the fact you can't even follow what I'm telling you half the time.

No, my problem with you is that you're acting like a pompous ass when all I wanted in the first place was a civil conversation.

[Suska]

Next time you might try being polite yourself. Before you object to that consider another direction, we don't need to bicker like this.

[pojut]

Fair enough...but come on, it's the Internet, you know I have to This is the last contentious thing I'll say, I promise:

Here's the first post I made in this thread directed towards you on Sat 17 Sep 2011, 21:16:

Suska, homosexuals can and do love each other the same way a straight couple does. However, you said that gay couples only see marriage as an avenue for legitimacy. "Only" is the operative word here.

Your response on Sat 17 Sep 2011, 21:20:

Another one looking for a villain.

It is "only" because gays don't need a state recognized marriage. No one does. It's political. There's nothing about it you can't get outside it.

My response on Sat 17 Sep 2011, 21:22:

Well, they certainly seem to think they do. What's the problem with giving it to them? How will that, in any way, directly impact your marriage or ability to get married?

And your response on Sat 17 Sep 2011, 21:24:

read the fucking thread

Now do you see why I grew so frustrated with you so quickly? Within four posts and 8 minutes, you were already cussing at me.

[Suska]

Poor you. It must be hard to hear someone say the word fucking. I would not have been frustrated had you, y'know read the fucking thread in the first place. Shall I dig up all the accusations you and the doc have made against me? Anyone that had read the thread would have known my position pretty much completely. It's not all that complicated. What really gets me is how you did that "you really can't even answer a simple question buillshit" You even did it after I'd answered and yes, I'd already answered earlier. The question about my status was completely inappropriate as well and naturally attracted the Donald-unit, which is never a festive occasion.

[pojut]

Poor you. It must be hard to hear someone say the word fucking. I would not have been frustrated had you, y'know read the fucking thread in the first place. Shall I dig up all the accusations you and the doc have made against me? Anyone that had read the thread would have known my position pretty much completely. It's not all that complicated. What really gets me is how you did that "you really can't even answer a simple question buillshit" You even did it after I'd answered and yes, I'd already answered earlier. The question about my status was completely inappropriate as well and naturally attracted the Donald-unit, which is never a festive occasion.

Poor you, it must be so hard to have someone ask if you're married just so they know how to approach a subject.

You'll recall that I responded quite positively to your notion of closeness with nature.