Comments on: c’mon and show me what you’ve done… http://journal.dhead.com/archives/2004/02/13/cmon-and-show-me-what-youve-done/ random ramblings Wed, 07 Jan 2009 02:28:27 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.3 By: PakG1 http://journal.dhead.com/archives/2004/02/13/cmon-and-show-me-what-youve-done/#comment-108 PakG1 Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000 http://journal.dhead.com/archives/2004/02/13/cmon-and-show-me-what-youve-done/#comment-108 Quite often, religious institutions lose their meaning because the religion itself has lost their meaning, distinctiveness, and instead becomes a social institution. I think it's quite clear that many people in this world see marriage as having passed through that transformation, except for those who understand why they "attend church." Reading "The Cost of Discipleship" by Dietrich Bonhoeffer" right now. It describes society's view of Christianity quite well and how it contrasts with what it should be. Though perhaps you've already read it, Dan? ;) Author was executed in a Nazi camp. Big loss. :( Quite often, religious institutions lose their meaning because the religion itself has lost their meaning, distinctiveness, and instead becomes a social institution. I think it’s quite clear that many people in this world see marriage as having passed through that transformation, except for those who understand why they “attend church.” Reading “The Cost of Discipleship” by Dietrich Bonhoeffer” right now. It describes society’s view of Christianity quite well and how it contrasts with what it should be. Though perhaps you’ve already read it, Dan? ;) Author was executed in a Nazi camp. Big loss. :(

]]> By: Lawrence http://journal.dhead.com/archives/2004/02/13/cmon-and-show-me-what-youve-done/#comment-109 Lawrence Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000 http://journal.dhead.com/archives/2004/02/13/cmon-and-show-me-what-youve-done/#comment-109 Had a little conversation with my phil prof today about the topic. He says that whatever "same-sex marriages" happen in the next two years will be revoked by the Supreme Court. Now THAT will be interesting to see. When governments redefine the dictionary, that makes me very nervous. Governments didn't invent marriage and thus they don't have the authority, or "author's rights" to change it. I'd rather see governments take themselves out of the whole marriage business rather than see them redefine marriage in such a way. That would be the most consistent with getting out of "the bedrooms of the nation". But you're right though. There's really no reason to do this except for the reason for a social agenda. And that's fine and good. Ending slavery was a social agenda, so what society needs to do is to evaluate whether or not this social agenda is beneficial to the common good. I contend that it is not. Had a little conversation with my phil prof today about the topic. He says that whatever “same-sex marriages” happen in the next two years will be revoked by the Supreme Court. Now THAT will be interesting to see.

When governments redefine the dictionary, that makes me very nervous. Governments didn’t invent marriage and thus they don’t have the authority, or “author’s rights” to change it. I’d rather see governments take themselves out of the whole marriage business rather than see them redefine marriage in such a way. That would be the most consistent with getting out of “the bedrooms of the nation”. But you’re right though. There’s really no reason to do this except for the reason for a social agenda.

And that’s fine and good. Ending slavery was a social agenda, so what society needs to do is to evaluate whether or not this social agenda is beneficial to the common good. I contend that it is not.

]]> By: Joe http://journal.dhead.com/archives/2004/02/13/cmon-and-show-me-what-youve-done/#comment-110 Joe Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000 http://journal.dhead.com/archives/2004/02/13/cmon-and-show-me-what-youve-done/#comment-110 Is this really all about semantics? Leave the word "marriage" for Christians / however anyone else wants to use it. Have the government only recognise "Civil Unions" or whatever else they want to call them, and provide with it all the legal/tax benefits currently bestowed upon civil marriages. Would that make people more comfortable? Is this really all about semantics? Leave the word “marriage” for Christians / however anyone else wants to use it. Have the government only recognise “Civil Unions” or whatever else they want to call them, and provide with it all the legal/tax benefits currently bestowed upon civil marriages. Would that make people more comfortable?

]]>