Baldwin: "Only between a Man and a Woman Only"

[Dary]

So reason and God are exclusive?

Yes. When it comes to matters of god, reason is moot.

You know you haven't thought about a whole lot about life if you really believe that.

Right. Because if I had, then I would obviously come to the same conclusions as you right?

What if I said I like reason and my imagination, would reason be damned as well?

I'm not damning reason. But I am damning arguments where the claim is made that reason is the basis of the argument, but then god is used as a trump card.

You have referred to what you think...

Of course I have and so have you. But somehow only my arguments are based on sentiment whereas yours are solely based on objectivity despite your reliance on god, thinly veiled and disguised as natural law, to back them up.

God said to worship in spirit and truth, that what we hear in the ear we shout from the rooftop, that we are to respect no person but truth. If a homosexual denied my rights I would still in all charity tell him that he has denied the laws of God, and has denied natural law (reason).

See. There you go again. Claim reason but play the god card. I can't win. God trumps all.

You certainly aren't going to tell me what is or isn't Scripture and pretend it's my fault for quoting the Bible when I haven't done it once.

I most certainly am. You just did it. You said... "God said to worship in spirit and truth, that what we hear in the ear we shout from the rooftop, that we are to respect no person but truth."

Morality is the basis for all law.

You would "think" so. But there is no requirement on my part to be moral in order for me to object to being robbed or killed. Of course moralists will always claim it to be so, but I see no reason why we can't agree on certain "truths" without bringing morality into it.

You are trying to find a hole that isn't there as a contradistinction and ram it down my throat as an argument I've never made.

I'm not trying to ram anything down your throat. I was simply responding to a post where an objection was made to granting gay couples marriage licenses and voiced my disagreement with that whole notion.

Do you really think Obama and the Dems are going to "change" anything?

No. Why you would even ask that question? Is there anything in my posts where I have indicated that I would "think" such a thing?

But it really wouldn't matter anyway what I thought would it? Seeing as how my thoughts are nothing more than intuition, void of any objectivity and reason.

Can a father lawfully marry his daughter in your version of freedom if they were consenting adults?

I really don't care what two consenting adults agree to, as long as they are no direct threat to me and frankly, it's none of my business anyway.

I have tried to appeal to teleological truths from natural law and not the Bible.

Yes but you have also likened natural law to god's law.

Telling the truth is what I would want others doing onto to me.

Ok then. Based on your previous comments in defense of god's law I take it that you are a believer in god and in particular the Christian god, otherwise you wouldn't liken god's law to natural law and then use them in order to make the argument that gay couples shouldn't be allowed to get marriage licenses. I also don't see how you could defend and believe in god's laws without believing in god. So here is some of your truth for you.

If you believe in god and believe that the bible is the word of god, then despite your good intentions you have refused to take him at his word when he said that by grace are ye saved through faith. That faith is the substance of things not seen (faith is not reason), and that only if you believe (and have faith) in your heart that god raised his son from the dead will you be saved.

Using reasoning in order to make a case for gods laws (ergo salvation) will guarantee you nothing and if you continue with that line of thinking, then you haven't understood anything he has said and according to the bible, you are doomed.

Proof of god's existence (and therefore god's laws) cannot be found anywhere in nature and no amount of reasoning and rationality will ever bring them into being. He made sure of it. The reason being is that he expects more from his children and that if proof were readily available then there would be no point in requiring faith therefore salvation becomes moot.

So, is there any room for faith in your strict adherence to reason? If so, then all of your claims of objectivity are null. For you cannot be fully objective if you have faith in god, and you cannot defend his laws nor have salvation without it. You cannot reason away faith. Or is it that you only believe in some of god's laws (in particular salvation vs. all others)?

As it is, all of your arguments collapse upon themselves.

To think all of this stemmed from whether or not gay couples should be allowed marriage licenses.

 

[Dary]

I can't believe the shit I read on these forums sometimes.

Incredible ain't it?

 

[RonPaulMania]

Yes. When it comes to matters of god, reason is moot.

That' either a statement from ignorance or malice. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Right. Because if I had, then I would obviously come to the same conclusions as you right?

Yes, actually. You haven't studied minor or major logic and want to impose your illogical assertions on me as if you know what you are talking about without any connection.

I'm not damning reason. But I am damning arguments where the claim is made that reason is the basis of the argument, but then god is used as a trump card.

But you have never once proven reasonably or logically you are correct on matters of natural law.

Of course I have and so have you. But somehow only my arguments are based on sentiment whereas yours are solely based on objectivity despite your reliance on god, thinly veiled and disguised as natural law, to back them up.

This proves you are clueless. I have not quoted Scripture once nor have I ever used the God card because I know people do this on this message board. Do you want me to so you know what it looks like? I pointed to the Greeks belief in philosophy of natural law, 300 years before Christ. You just don't like facts because against a fact there is no argument. I'll tell you what, show me how Greeks were Christians before Christianity and how their natural law was a thinly veiled version of God's law. Here you are asserting I'm too Godly, below you assert I'm all about reason. You can't even argue cohesively.

See. There you go again. Claim reason but play the god card. I can't win. God trumps all.

Actually you were trying to quote Scripture, not I. So "there you go again". Can you stay on topic and realize when you quote Scripture I have to defend it? I haven't used Scripture once as MY argument. Again, below you have me juxtaposed to faith, so your arguments are running shallower by the second.

I most certainly am. You just did it. You said... "God said to worship in spirit and truth, that what we hear in the ear we shout from the rooftop, that we are to respect no person but truth."

I haven't made my case on Scripture, you used it. I'm only defending your warped understanding of it, but I haven't made my case on it. Let me simplify it:
-I made a case on natural law
-You replied quoting Scripture out of wack
-I replied to your assertion of Scripture, but that wasn't my case since people will claim I'm using God and hiding behind God.
Does that make sense?

You would "think" so. But there is no requirement on my part to be moral in order for me to object to being robbed or killed. Of course moralists will always claim it to be so, but I see no reason why we can't agree on certain "truths" without bringing morality into it.

So intentionality isn't part of law? Where did you come up with this? Let's say you throw out all morality in law, it would be absolute chaos with no principles of law whatsoever.

Yes but you have also likened natural law to god's law.

Because they are not incompatible, nor contradictory. Likening to God's law and natural law doesn't make natural law less relevant, or God's law that much incompatible with reason. All subsequent argument below you made relate to this. My belief of God or someone's unbelief of God has nothing to do with natural law, as it pre-existed Christianity.

If you believe in god and believe that the bible is the word of god, then despite your good intentions you have refused to take him at his word when he said that by grace are ye saved through faith. That faith is the substance of things not seen (faith is not reason), and that only if you believe (and have faith) in your heart that god raised his son from the dead will you be saved.

What have I said that contradicts that? I've been repeating that faith is not natural law and used the Greeks as proof.

Using reasoning in order to make a case for gods laws (ergo salvation) will guarantee you nothing and if you continue with that line of thinking, then you haven't understood anything he has said and according to the bible, you are doomed.

You don't know the difference between moral theology and ethics then do you? I haven't once brought in moral theology to make MY case, solely ethics.

Proof of god's existence (and therefore god's laws) cannot be found anywhere in nature and no amount of reasoning and rationality will ever bring them into being. He made sure of it.

At this point I'm ending the conversation. You don't know what you are talking about. The difference between arguing mathematics and philosophy is that math is easy to understand for the dummy when you say 2+2=4. Philosophy is based on clear thought, precision, and humility to learn. It's likened to a person who knowing nothing about Mangolian history asserts the Khans were cool guys in movies with big swords. Your knowledge of theology is so poorly based I almost wonder why you are arguing.

1st Proof of God's existence can be known without faith. Read Aristotle's five proofs which are elucidated by St. Thomas
2nd It is said so in Scripture "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made." Romans 1:20
3rd I've never asserted what you claim here but contradict previously: "So, is there any room for faith in your strict adherence to reason?" as I have previously said they are not incompatible.
4th Your conclusion that because one has faith (unseen) that what is known by reason cannot be known is so poorly thought out I don't see the use anymore. If science proves that gravity pulls things faster and closer as they approach their terminus, and then a theologians says the same about the soul approaching God, can one then dismiss the scientist because they are analogous forms of expression?
5th You haven't proved that faith makes someone subjective when natural law, as if Greek philosophers never discovered that

Now here is a quote from Scripture where St. Paul is quoting natural law, from the same paragraph where he says those things of nature can be known, where the invisible can be known through the visible (through abstraction of thought). But chew on this and then tell me how I've contradicted myself and all the cards come crumbling down:

"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: 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 recompense of their error which was meet."

Objectivity doesn't change with belief in God. Only someone completely ignorant of philosophy would know that. Was Aristotle non-objective then? You can have the last word, your arguments are shallow and anti-intellectual and I don't have time.

 

[RonPaulMania]

And people wonder why the religious bigots get their asses raped on this forum all the time.
Its equal treatment under the law unless you are a faggot right?

I can't believe the shit I read on these forums sometimes.

Shows your tolerance huh? Stupid jackasses like you are a reason why this movement goes no where. Pretend it's me if you makes you feel better.

Also, you have raped anyone, except your own dignity.

 

[berrybunches]

Before this goes any further, can anyone here who has opposing views explain if this country wasn't built on Christian law explain why homosexuality was illegal in every state (it was a state issue), with the last state of Texas recently repealing it's law 4 or 5 years ago? Part of the loss of liberty is the loss of reason and the denial of natural law.

That's easy, it was outlawed becuase of bigotry and the tyranny of the majority. Same reason women were not allowed to vote and slavery was still legal.

So this country was founded by Christian individuals (not the founders), so what? Doesn't mean the minority has to suffer the majorities wrath. That type of thinking is against the philosophy of liberty.

 

[ClockwiseSpark]

Shows your tolerance huh? Stupid jackasses like you are a reason why this movement goes no where. Pretend it's me if you makes you feel better.

Also, you have raped anyone, except your own dignity.

Fear not unbeliever. The Flying Spaghetti Monster loves you in spite of your ignorance. Open yourself to the truth and be touched by his noodly appendage.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

That's easy, it was outlawed becuase of bigotry and the tyranny of the majority. Same reason women were not allowed to vote and slavery was still legal.

So this country was founded by Christian individuals (not the founders), so what? Doesn't mean the minority has to suffer the majorities wrath. That type of thinking is against the philosophy of liberty.

+1

 

[Dary]

That' either a statement from ignorance or malice. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

I was wondering when the insults would start.

You haven't studied minor or major logic and want to impose your illogical assertions on me.

I'm not trying to impose anything on you. I'm simply responding to messages on a message board and expressing my opinion.

This proves you are clueless.

Thanks for that.

...you assert I'm all about reason.

Actually you were the one asserting that you are all about reason.

You can't even argue cohesively.

Thanks for that too.

Actually you were trying to quote Scripture, not I.

That's true. But I didn't do it to prove my point. I did it to disprove yours.

-I made a case on natural law

Yes but you also likened it to god's law. I wouldn't have said anything concerning scripture if you hadn't brought god into the conversation.

...it would be absolute chaos with no principles of law whatsoever.

Why? Do you disagree with my statement that it requires no morality on my part to object to being robbed or killed? Must I only have morality before I have the right to object to such actions?

You don't know what you are talking about.

Thanks again.

I ask the reader to remember a previous quote from RonPaulMania.

Let me tell you something I've seen world-wide now, whenever Christian justice, or natural law is brought up it brings out the hatred and vile language not seen by those professing natural law. Labels are used rather than rational discourse is the course of argument, and then turned on us as wackos when they haven't used the semblance of logic.

I have never once insulted RonPaulMania. I have never inferred that he/she was ignorant or mean. I haven't questioned his/her education or claimed he is trying to impose anything on me. I have never stated that he doesn't know what he is talking about. I have never said that he is clueless. I have never said that he couldn't argue coherently. I have never said that his sentiments are irrelevant. I have never claimed that he hasn't put much thought into his arguments. I have never said that his arguments are poorly thought out, shallow or anti-intellectual.

I have not misstated any of the conclusions that he has made as he does here with me.

Your conclusion that because one has faith (unseen) that what is known by reason cannot be known.

Yet he has done all of these things to me and more. And that's fine. I'm not complaining. I'm glad he did it. As for my part, I've addressed his points as I see them.

Also, take a look at what RonPaulMania says to torchbear.

... Stupid jackass...

So I ask you dear reader, is it any wonder why those who engage him in debate might resort to "using the "F" word, or using disgusting, vile language?

He has done exactly what he says that others do to him.


----------------
And yet it moves.

 

[Dary]

That's easy, it was outlawed becuase of bigotry and the tyranny of the majority. Same reason women were not allowed to vote and slavery was still legal.

So this country was founded by Christian individuals (not the founders), so what? Doesn't mean the minority has to suffer the majorities wrath. That type of thinking is against the philosophy of liberty.

+2

Nice.

 

[RonPaulMania]

That's easy, it was outlawed becuase of bigotry and the tyranny of the majority. Same reason women were not allowed to vote and slavery was still legal.

So this country was founded by Christian individuals (not the founders), so what? Doesn't mean the minority has to suffer the majorities wrath. That type of thinking is against the philosophy of liberty.

+15 million trillion quadrillion... awesome awesome stuff... really deep insights I've never pounded (oops that's for homos), I mean pondered...

I mean why not use a label, expand it to other forms of beliefs that are political talking points, and not address the issue as a state right and use federal rights as your logic. I mean really cool logic dude.

Maybe +16 million trillion quadrillion since it was so deep I'm going to dream about it like forever or something.

 

[kombayn]

Like a typical secularist you don't use reason and make assumptions. If my mother was an alcoholic should I hate her too? If a person commits an act it doesn't mean I hate them, but the act is still reprehensible.

I do use reason. Gay people have equal rights like straight people and they should be allowed to marry. Where does gay marriage hurt anyone except your Christian views?

What does race and homosexuality have to do with anything? As a white male I spent 2 years of my life working with poor hispanics and blacks in Belize and Guatemala. Do you want to compare records?

Homosexuality has everything to do with this topic. EVERYTHING! This topic is about gay marriage. I'm using Race and when segregation was still rampant as an example of the times changing.

Does that mean that a father can marry his daughter too?

What the hell are you talking about? That's two completely different things, if two men or two women want to be married, then they should be allowed too. Honestly, if a Father and a Daughter consented to getting married, go ahead. I would think that's extremely weird but if that made them happy, so be it. If you want to go that extreme in the subject.

Actually there is, and that's move. I'm not there yet. What's strange is this Christianity you pretend is a curse among the people is the same thing that kept most countries free. Well you can have your secular world, slavery comes free of charge. If you think Christianity doesn't allow divergence of opinion, wait until the world you think is coming gives you a shot at free speech.

I don't curse Christianity as the scourge of the world. I think it helps a lot of people lead a better life, but I find people like YOU, who use your faith to help scourge the world of homosexuality and their right to marry, completely disrespectful and ignorant.

So the only question I have for you is this... What does two men or two women getting married, harm you or your life in any way? Why do you want to discourage them from their own personal happiness, why do you feel the need to prevent equal rights for all. I would love to read a logical explanation, because I know why you don't want gay people to marry, because you hate gays and you think it'll "mess" with your child's head. You're a bigoted idiot, 'nuff said.

P.S. I voted No on Prop 8 in the State of California, which will uphold the law to allow Gay couples to marry. Dick.

 

[ItsTime]

It is about LIBERTY not GOD.... think about it

 

[torchbearer]

It is about LIBERTY not GOD.... think about it

I was thinking God wanted us to have liberty.

 

[ItsTime]

I was thinking God wanted us to have liberty.

So did i

 

[kombayn]

It is about LIBERTY not GOD.... think about it

+1, at least a lot of people don't give a shit about a meaningless topic like this. Gay people want this as a part of their rights and lives, it's really important to them. Lets give them what they want in the sake of liberty, not morality.

 

[ClockwiseSpark]

I was thinking God wanted us to have liberty.

Not gay people.

 

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

The egyptians married... and countless other cultures married. it is not just a xtian belief.

Yeppers.

 

[Neil Kiernan Stephenson]

Oh, and vote for Chales Jay instead of Chuck Baldwin if your in one of the states you can vote for him or write him in.

CJ08.com for a REAL freedom candidate.

 

[Theocrat]

"God Created Adam and Eve, Not Adam and Steve"

+1, at least a lot of people don't give a shit about a meaningless topic like this. Gay people want this as a part of their rights and lives, it's really important to them. Lets give them what they want in the sake of liberty, not morality.

You're missing the fundamental issue of where rights orignate. God, our Maker, gives us our rights, and nowhere does He say that homosexuals have a right to be married. As a matter of fact, God speaks against homosexuality when He states, "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13) God repeats His prohibition of any homosexual union in Romans 1:22-27, stating,

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves, who changed the truth of God into a lie and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, Who is blessed for ever. Amen.

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, 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.

So, you see, God does not intend for homosexuals to be united in marriage, for that goes against nature. Marriage, according to God, is between a man and a woman exclusively (Genesis 2:18, 22-24; Matthew 19:4; et. al.). Any other union between two human beings that is not after God's model is a perversion of God's institution of marriage, and therefore, it should not even be considered as such. Gays do have a right to live, but they do not have a right to marry each other, according to God Who gives us our rights in the first place.

On one final note, I'll just say simply that you cannot have liberty without morality. Liberty is predicated on the existence of sound moral principles, and without it, there will never be liberty, as Samuel Adams once said, "[N]either the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt."

 

[qaxn]

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Gays do have a right to live

hahaha what.