walkntune

Never claimed Einstein is religious and on the contrary stated he believes in a scientific cosmic order. Are you familiar with the God of Spinoza? If I make a statement about what he claimed to believe then I think it's only fair that I use his quote for such a statement as annoying as it may be. It's a matter of respect for him to use his quote when I claim he stated something and contrary to your unjustifiable claim that it's disrespectful. Since you have such a clear understanding and definition of his view on his quotes(that anyone can see) would you be willing to share? I will be open to your interpretation I promise.I will put them here

My intentions were nothing more than just to throw out an idea that I was in agreement with Sisyphus on some points he was making and I also have beliefs in a cosmic order(cause and effect) and structure of the universe which I may refer to as a more logical or scientific God that might be impossible to prove nonexistent or otherwise.(after all, science pointed Einstein in the direction of his beliefs) Of course it's hard to even agree with someone on points on forums without them turning it into a debate or try to debunk you but I find it humorous and don't try and take it at face value. I am here to learn about this God of Spinoza, not try to prove it to others. With these kind of comments you might get a smile. I didn't start from reading a source and form a belief or opinion, I started from a belief or opinion(intuitive sense if you will) and I find similar beliefs through sources I read. Now because i say that I don't limit myself to a particular method doesn't mean I put down any method, it just means I am open to all possibilities of observing and understanding the universe.(we belong to it, it doesn't belong to us).Who am I to create a system to observe the universe and try and make it fit into this method I create and manipulate it when and if it doesn't fit.I believe we sink from that which we hold on to,not that which we are willing to let go of and be open to. I am open to science and it has pulled me away from having a closed religious stance against other methods and helped me have some great understandings of why whatever it was that was working for me was actually working. I am open to how religion works for people as well and think although there are many aspects that are not understood in some religious folks, there are methods to it that work very well for many people. I believe the greatest truths will be revealed in the balance and harmony of intuition and logical rational thinking and not when one is leaning to far on one side or the other.

I am a songwriter and musician as well as curious and I observe the world logically, artistically and intuitively.

I wouldn't say limited to, I would say open to some ideas.Sort of like the scientific method. It's a good tool but I wouldn't limit myself to it.

Actually no but came across some of the views through reading literature on Einstein. I might be a bit curious to more of Spinoza's thoughts though.

Besides some of us believe in the God of Sponaza and of Einstein and certain aspects of science are pointing in that direction and not away from it.

there was nothing sexually gendered in (my) comment.

There is nothing sexual gendered in the comment.

These are good points. I feel marriage should be encouraged for love only and not for beneficiary reasons and actually the same for reproduction.(People having children to take advantage of welfare system).

It would only include reproduction and not adoption. It"s the reproduction of children that is beneficial to future generations.

Maybe it would be more beneficial to give benefits to only marriages that reproduce.This would discourage any marriage for the sole purpose of benefits.

Of course we can change definitions, Words only have meaning because we give them meaning.But then again that's why I see no value in a secular marriage except for the state benefits which of course is meaning we gave it.What interesting word would you change matry from besides "mother" I suppose they would say matry means marriage and mony still means "subject to be"

I don't believe males can use matrimony since the only definition I find is (mother subject to be).

Well i am like you I don't actively oppose it and actually never think about it too much. I definitely don't understand or relate to it. You always assume as a kid that certain pieces of a puzzle fit together for the purpose of the continuation of nature so when you first here about gays it makes you scratch your head and ponder. I can understand wanting certain rights that could be beneficial.

Well I am not for the state being involved in marriage and feel it's unfair for single people who have a tough time surviving so it's just more complicated from my point of view!

I can't form an opinion with women because I don't know if their are health risks involved which is my biggest concern. So if you ask an opinion on marriage I really could care less either way and find no value in it and not sure of any benefits for society. Like I said I find the value of sex as a way to reproduce so it may be possible that other uses are a little detrimental to humanity instead of helpful but if there is value than please share!

Where is this when I said that two consenting adults have their right to take their own sexual behavior risks?Or is it because I value marriage on a spiritual level and find no value in it secular based, or because I feel children should not have to be exposed to certain relationship practices until they are at a certain age of accountability?Asking out of curiosity is not the same as being subjected to it.(And this doesn't matter what the sexual genders are). Trying to find out where the secular value of the term lies. For me it is a spiritual meaning where two people come together as one to produce one flesh after their own kind. What do you mean by accept? You mean place the same value on it? I am not attracted to the same sex so I find no value in it and it would even be difficult to reproduce! Are you asking if society should find value in it? Besides curing loneliness for the ones who are participating and sharing their time together help me to see what value it adds to society. Maybe I am missing something.Since I don't understand what the values are and the benefits to society are from the stand point of gay marriage, why don't you enlighten me to what they are. I ultimately see people finding mates as a way of reproduction and the circle of life and can easily discern the value in this.Sure it's enjoyable but I don't find that as the reason for it's value.

I guess it's possible to hang out in bars without drinking but they are usually associated with alcohol. Why? Does it have any less meaning? I feel it would be better left as an open elective for older kids in high who can handle their own convictions of what they feel is right for them than to be taught the acceptance of certain behaviors and lifestyles to children in second grade who they convieniently know they can teach them when they are young and lead them around like cattle. http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54420 I don't feel religion needs to be taught in school either.

[ I have already answered this. Didn't say gay couple , I am talking about the health risk factors of anal sex. If gays want to use a definition of the word marriage to be joined together, I don't care but just interested in a reason why it is limited to just humans? If they are taught about anal sex as an alternative lifestyle while forced to be in class,is that not in essence knowledge being forced on them. Why is there such a debate about evolution and creationism being taught in schools?

I am just saying if you use the word in this context, why do you need to limit the usage with just people? I know this was argued but I never heard the answer. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedNow I guess I will find the related threads to search through but this one took awhile.

I don't oppose gays getting married anymore than I would someone drinking, smoking, eating unhealthy foods(and it's actually the sexual acts) that I would oppose. I believe consenting adults should have there rights to take their health risks but just don't believe it should be forced into society or on children in schools any more than the act of smoking, drinking, etc...

Outside of spiritual meaning it only has meaning it is given by paper and law(for me).For me it has spiritual meaning but I was left with no choice from the original post to give secular reasons. As far as I am concerned you can come along and sing Christmas carols,spread the joy of giving love and presents,celebrate gatherings of friends and family,Etc... You don't have to believe in God and Jesus to do this.The holiday meaning will be different for you than a Christian though. You can also get married but just can't do it in the name of Holy matrimony.Once again you can take the word marry but it still has an altered definition from matrimony. When you take the word marriage to encompass unions of ideas, things and people, why do you need to limit it's meaning to just people?

Yes you are correct on this. Matrimony was describing a certain state of the usage of the word marriage. And that state is (state of being a mother). There is only one way to be a mother and you have to be female. No, I agree.I don't believe the sex practice should be encouraged to children at all whether homosexual or heterosexual. As far as denying the use of the word marriage as in to encompass unions of ideas, things and people I can care less. Just don't take the definition of holy matrimony because as I have explained 1 You have to be a mother 2 It actually does mean the state of being a mother. (Now I believe the word marriage is derived from taking a bride or young woman but admit I am still searching on this.) Hmmmmm! What's your definition of need? No they actually meant "the act of being a mother" but somehow I believe men will be mothers before this is over with. And notice I did say usually! Personally I agree with a post I read about secular marriage being a little on the absurd side. I don't see any meaningful definition outside of spiritual context and it's just a dumb piece of paper and law stating to be joined together for life.Hey, whatever we can do to control people right? It's an interesting topic. No better understanding of the origins of politics than through experience. My understanding of the definition of politics Poly means many and a tic is a blood sucking insect. Good try! Conversation is interesting but fruitless.

The word matrimony actually breaks down from latin into the words matyr and mony. Matyr means" mother "and mony is state of being.This is usually done through the mating process. Now we have stretched the meaning of the word marriage to encompass unions of ideas, things and people but it changes the meaning of the word marriage to no longer mean matrimony.While I read a post where someone mentioned marrying a desk or a chair, I can't see where that meaning would not fall into this category either.

I went through the posts "again" because you accused me of being rude so I figured this point was argued and I missed it but once did not find the post you mention. I did notice one brought up about health issues and it was argued that two consenting adults have a right to take their chances thus why I wrote in my first post in here. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Also wanted to point out that i don't believe a marriage actually becomes a marriage technically until it has been consecrated through sex and I don't believe being oral would constitute having sex. If you don't believe me ask Bill Clinton.