NationStates Jolt Archive

Try reading it sometime. You might have your eyes opened a bit if you concentrated more on the TEACHINGS OF JESUS....instead of on the rule book of don'ts inspired by that world-class bigot and hater, Paul of Tarsus.


Ah, but Paul was speaking for Jesus, as Jesus gave him the authority to do so. Therefore, that which Paul preached was the will of Christ. From the Old Testament, you can tell that God wasn't very lax on the rules issue. Just be glad Christ's death brought about the end of the Old Law, or else we couldn't have shellfish :D

I've already shown how I am not a hater and a bigot many times throughout this thread, I'm not doing it again.


You know...the problem many people, like myself have...with zealots like you?

You seek to covert...but you are REALLY BAD at it.

You turn people AWAY from God and Jesus, because you bring a message as comforting as a crown of thorns!

Not just you, Neo...but, basically just about ALL zealots and evangelicals have this problem.

They seek to convert, and spread the Word...but y'all are REALLY BAD at convincing anyone. Maybe you should examine your approach. Maybe therein you will find the reason your message is rejected by those you would seek to convert or rebuke.

Oh, Neo Rogolia, don't you see? The bible can be used to support/debunk any belief you could possibly imagine. It is flawed, self-contradictory, and ultimately, irrelevant.

Oh, but don't you see you are wrong? Or have you not read any texts from apologists?

Just because people who have a standard-based ethic concerning absolute right and wrong means that they need therapy for a "problem"?

And just because people have a standard-based ethic that is separate from the Christian Bible means they don't have morals, ethics, or values? That's where Evangelical Christians often offend non-Christians. It's not because they witness, it's because they insult anyone who disagrees with them by implying that they have no morals or values.

Ah, but Paul was speaking for Jesus, as Jesus gave him the authority to do so. Therefore, that which Paul preached was the will of Christ. From the Old Testament, you can tell that God wasn't very lax on the rules issue. Just be glad Christ's death brought about the end of the Old Law, or else we couldn't have shellfish :D
And so were the other Apostles speaking for Jesus. But you seem not to care what the others said...particularly when it contradicts what PAUL says.

I've already told you my opinion of Paul of Tarsus. He was a world-class bigot and hater. A waste of skin, if you ask me.

You know...the problem many people, like myself have...with zealots like you?

You seek to covert...but you are REALLY BAD at it.

You turn people AWAY from God and Jesus, because you bring a message as comforting as a crown of thorns!

Not just you, Neo...but, basically just about ALL zealots and evangelicals have this problem.

They seek to convert, and spread the Word...but y'all are REALLY BAD at convincing anyone. Maybe you should examine your approach. Maybe therein you will find the reason your message is rejected by those you would seek to convert or rebuke.


We follow the example set by Christ and his ordained apostles. Surely you are not saying that their methods were wrong? Christianity is a pretty strict religion from any standards, which is why not many embrace it fully and nothing will ever change that.


Matthew 7:13 13"Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14Because[a] narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.

Oh, but don't you see you are wrong? Or have you not read any texts from apologists?

Oh, but of course they are wrong. they don't agree with the venerable Neo Rogolia...who is ALWAYS RIGHT!! Except of course, when she's WRONG!!!

We follow the example set by Christ and his ordained apostles. Surely you are not saying that their methods were wrong? Christianity is a pretty strict religion from any standards, which is why not many embrace it fully and nothing will ever change that.


Matthew 7:13 13"Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14Because[a] narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.

And I assume you believe that you believe that you alone have knowledge of that one path...and that only you...and people who think like you...are on that path?

List of others who believed they were on that path:

1. Don Wildmon
2. Jerry Falwell
3. Pat Robertson
4. Fred Phelps
5. Adolf Hiter
6. George W. Bush

want me to go on?

why don't you read up some on what Paul of Tarsus REALLY was?

http://www.LiberalsLikeChrist.org

Follow the links. Read up on Paul of Tarsus.

and, mind, the person who put this website together speaks on the authority of being an ordained Roman Catholic priest.



Yes, it's sad they maintain that stance in spite of all evidence to the contrary. Also, I am not Catholic but the new pope seems to disagree with anything that man says, so wouldn't his entire arguments as a Catholic be nullified because they contradicted the pope?

Oh, but don't you see you are wrong? Or have you not read any texts from apologists?
I'm wrong? Ha. I am a god, because I have an authoritive piece of paper that says so. Therefore, I cannot be wrong.

I don't have to have committed murder to know that murder is wrong. I don't have to be a child molester to know that child molestationis wrong. I don't have to be a bigamist to know that bigamy is wrong. I don't have to be an arsonist to know that arson is wrong. And, I don't have to have spent an significant amount of time studying them to know that they are wrong.

It's quite simple -- either you believe in absolute right and wrong, based on the Bilbe, or you don't. Just because some people do doesn't mean that they are "judging" anyone. Conduct that doesn't meet the standard is wrong, not because I said so but because it doesn't meet the standard.

So, somehow being born attracted to the same sex puts gay people on the same footing as a murderer, a child molester, a bigamist, and an arsonist.

You walk head first into this discussion with a closed mind. Either you have never met someone gay in your whole life, or your are hanging deep in that closet.

And I assume you believe that you believe that you alone have knowledge of that one path...and that only you...and people who think like you...are on that path?

List of others who believed they were on that path:

1. Don Wildmon
2. Jerry Falwell
3. Pat Robertson
4. Fred Phelps
5. Adolf Hiter
6. George W. Bush

want me to go on?



They are wrong. They follow the correct method of teaching, but their teachings are wrong. Condemn the man and his misinformation, not the method.

I'm wrong? Ha. I am a god, because I have an authoritive piece of paper that says so. Therefore, I cannot be wrong.



Then let us see you perform a miracle. God, Christ, and the apostles were capable of performing miracles, which justifies their claim :)

Originally posted by: Neo Rogolia
God gave people free will.

I will concede to that point, but i'm pretty sure the tsunami last December didn't have a will of its own. :D

And as for that Judgement Day crack: That kind of elitist attitude doesn't help bring people to Jesus. It just ticks people off. And with good reason

Oh, but of course they are wrong. they don't agree with the venerable Neo Rogolia...who is ALWAYS RIGHT!! Except of course, when she's WRONG!!!


Pose one of your "discrepencies" and we shall study it and refute it :)

The Lord, in His wisdom, has endowed many men with great minds so that they may defend His Scriptures from those who would seek to denigrate them, and I have several books from those men that deal with many issues :)

Originally posted by: Neo Rogolia
God gave people free will.

I will concede to that point, but i'm pretty sure the tsunami last December didn't have a will of its own.

And as for that Judgement Day crack: That kind of elitist attitude doesn't help bring people to Jesus. It just ticks people off. And with good reason


Read half of her claims about my spiritual future and you will see it was justified :(

But Neo, don't you see? Its the attitude toward homosexuals and non-Christians that are held by people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson that we are denouncing!

Then let us see you perform a miracle. God, Christ, and the apostles were capable of performing miracles, which justifies their claim :)
(1) I love every single living creature in spite of whatever faults it may have.
(2) Love is a miracle.
(3) I am a writer, a singer, and an actress.
(4) These are all arts.
(5) Art is a miracle.
(6) Therefore, my claim is justified.
(7) I am a god.

(Me (http://artpad.art.com/?iitflajzar4) )
(Note: the preceding art was a joke.)

" You have been taught, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But I say: Love thine enemies, and pray for those who persecute you."

If you have felt during the duration of this thread that Lyric( I think thats who it was) and I have been hateful toward you, I sincerely apologize. But be the bigger person. Don't give in to Lyrics comments. I don't think I've been hateful at least.

(1) I love every single living creature in spite of whatever faults it may have.
(2) Love is a miracle.
(3) I am a writer, a singer, and an actress.
(4) These are all arts.
(5) Art is a miracle.
(6) Therefore, my claim is justified.
(7) I am a god.


Points 2 and 5 are incorrect.

" You have been taught, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But I say: Love thine enemies, and pray for those who persecute you."

If you have felt during the duration of this thread that Lyric( I think thats who it was) and I have been hateful toward you, I sincerely apologize. But be the bigger person. Don't give in to Lyrics comments. I don't think I've been hateful at least.


And I too ask forgiveness for anything I said that could be perceived as insulting and was not sanctioned by God.

Everyknowledge:

While I concede that all the things in your list are miracles, that's not what Neo meant obviously. But, unless I'm very much mistaken, there were certain people who claimed Buddha did those sorts of miracles too.

Originally posted by: Neo Rogolia
I too apologize for anything I said that was insulting or not sanctioned by God.

Group hug everybody :D Spread the love!

But Neo, don't you see? Its the attitude toward homosexuals and non-Christians that are held by people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson that we are denouncing!


True, hatred is wrong but rebuking a sinner for the betterment of their soul is not only ok but commanded.

Points 2 and 5 are incorrect.
You don't believe love and art are miracles? Then what is a miracle?

This is one of the longest threads I've ever seen! Why is it always the threads about the gays than go on forever?

This is one of the longest threads I've ever seen! Why is it always the threads about the gays than go on forever?
Because of the international gay conspiracy, of course.

An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God: “Miracles are spontaneous, they cannot be summoned, but come of themselves” (Katherine Anne Porter).
One that excites admiring awe. See Synonyms at wonder.



That being said, I anticipate that you are going to say as these are inexplicable according to science they must therefore be miraculous...and rightly so, but they are not our miracles..they are God's miracles, for He is the source of love and He gives us the creativity necessary for art.

Because of the international gay conspiracy, of course.


Because people don't like being told what they are doing is sinful ;)

I don't mean to spoil the happy moment, Neo, but as I said before, I, personally, don't think that Paul or the authors of Leviticus were given divine knowledge. Paul was spreading a powerful story set in motion by God, but we technically don't know what Jesus thought about gays.

Back onto the point of legislating religious laws, I believe certain morals
( i.e. most of the Ten Commandments like don't steal or murder etc.) should be legislated. But for things as specific as the Bible's supposed condemnation of homosexuality? I don't know. Think of it this way: Imagine that Congress was dominated by Orthodox Jewish legislators and they decided to pass a law that banned people from eating non-kosher foods. Would that be fair? No

I claim the Bible to hold authority on what God wants. Therefore, the Bible should dictate policy. Our views of God may differ, but the Bible speaks with authority.

You know what this would mean Neo. This would bring about a state religion which because of the seperation clause can NEVER happen. Also the whole point about this thread is to get equal rights for gays and lesbians that are garunteed to heterosexual couples. No one is trying to force religions to recognize anything. No one is trying to force churches to marry homosexuals. All we are trying to do is make sure a group of people are given the same rights under the law that everyone else does.

You know what this would mean Neo. This would bring about a state religion which because of the seperation clause can NEVER happen. Also the whole point about this thread is to get equal rights for gays and lesbians that are garunteed to heterosexual couples. No one is trying to force religions to recognize anything. No one is trying to force churches to marry homosexuals. All we are trying to do is make sure a group of people are given the same rights under the law that everyone else does.


Read back a few (or a trillion, it's hard to remember with this thread ballooning at such a rate) pages, and you will see I really have no problem with equal rights for homosexuals, just having the government say that their union is sanctified by God.

I don't mean to spoil the happy moment, Neo, but as I said before, I, personally, don't think that Paul or the authors of Leviticus were given divine knowledge. Paul was spreading a powerful story set in motion by God, but we technically don't know what Jesus thought about gays.

Back onto the point of legislating religious laws, I believe certain morals
( i.e. most of the Ten Commandments like don't steal or murder etc.) should be legislated. But for things as specific as the Bible's supposed condemnation of homosexuality? I don't know. Think of it this way: Imagine that Congress was dominated by Orthodox Jewish legislators and they decided to pass a law that banned people from eating non-kosher foods. Would that be fair? No


If one were to pour kosher salt on pork, would that make it ok? :confused: I wonder...

They can have their civil unions, but when they tread on religious territory, they'd better think twice before trying to >>FORCE<< their will upon us by having their marriage recognized. See? It's not just us who are trying to force things.
I have asked this already, why do you tolerate marriage by heterosexual non-Christians? You seem to believe that marriage is owned exclusively by Christianity, so should it not be off-limits to atheists, Buddhists, etc?

Actually, it might entail forcing churches to marry gays, because there are a lot of Christians within the gay community. But seeing as there is so much controversy, I'm not sure churches shouldn't do it. Show some love for gay Christians man!

Quote (sorry had to cut and paste, couldn't find original)

"Doesn't matter as Peter started the Catholic Church and since he was "infalliable" any system he created would therefore be perfect and therefore it has the only true interpretation of what Christ wanted and therefore you are still wrong and will subsequently burn in Hell."




I could be wrong of course, but I believe the Bible states quite clearly that Jesus was the only person who was "infalliable" - any acts of Peter would be as rife with imperfection as the acts of any other person.

I know this, but Neo refuses to accept it. I was saying this as a way of saying that if Paul was infalliable because he was "filled with the Holy Spirit" then Peter would be infalliable as well and thus the Catholic Church would be the only right church because its systems were dvised by someone who was infalliable and would therefore always choose the best canidate.

Read back a few (or a trillion, it's hard to remember with this thread ballooning at such a rate) pages, and you will see I really have no problem with equal rights for homosexuals, just having the government say that their union is sanctified by God.

And giving gays the right to be married doesnt say their union is sanctified by god. All it does is give them equal protection under the law. You brought religion in to the debate while everyone else has been saying god isnt involved in the issue. The government is the whole issue and since the government and religion cant go together you should have no problem with big brother giving the okay for gays to be married.

Read back a few (or a trillion, it's hard to remember with this thread ballooning at such a rate) pages, and you will see I really have no problem with equal rights for homosexuals, just having the government say that their union is sanctified by God.
Which the government wouldn't be doing. This has been pointed out to you dozens of times, yet you refuse to listen. So, for the last time, marriage is a secular union. This is why the government can perform one.

Seriously, Neo. Banning gay marriage is just as unfair as the hypothetical situation I just described. Admit it: You know its the same principle.

In addition, Neo R, surely it makes a good case for separation of Church and State if you don't want civil marriages to carry implication/statement of God's approval?

in point of fact the catholic church at one point taught that people who aren't white (people of colour is a daft term the only people with no colour are albino's and they come from all races) have no soul and due to the fact that pope's are infallible no one has ever taken this back... they just stopped teaching it. therefore the comparison is a perfectly valid one.

now hold on a minute,maybe im wrong but i dont think the church has ever taught anything like that.and as far as i know papal infalibilty is a pretty new doctrine.i know thats got nothin to do with gay marriage but anyway

I really have no problem with equal rights for homosexuals
False. You want the old sodomy laws back.

I know really decent people who are not homophobic but just don't like the idea of gay marriage. I know its a pretty important right, but being against gay marriage doesn't make you a bigot. I don't hold their views, but i respect them.

I know this, but Neo refuses to accept it. I was saying this as a way of saying that if Paul was infalliable because he was "filled with the Holy Spirit" then Peter would be infalliable as well and thus the Catholic Church would be the only right church because its systems were dvised by someone who was infalliable and would therefore always choose the best canidate.



If Peter was infallible, then wouldn't you respect his statement that he was no better than any apostle? Claiming infallibility actually strengthens my case, especially since we're saying that Peter was infallible instead of those who came several hundred years later ;)

False. You want the old sodomy laws back.


I said I wouldn't mind it, but did I ever say I wanted it? Quit being so presumptuous.

In addition, Neo R, surely it makes a good case for separation of Church and State if you don't want civil marriages to carry implication/statement of God's approval?


Actually, if a strictly conservative Christian theocracy were in power, then the opposite would be the case. Until then, we'll take the best we can get.

Actually, if a strictly conservative Christian theocracy were in power, then the opposite would be the case. Until then, we'll take the best we can get.

So you'd rather the United States be a theocracy then a republic?

I won't answer what my ideal government would be, for fear of being lynched.

I won't answer what my ideal government would be, for fear of being lynched.

are there any countries out there that currently have a version of your ideal govt.?

are there any countries out there that currently have a version of your ideal govt.?



Quit trying to get me killed >.<

Quit trying to get me killed >.<

O come on. No one here is going to try to find where you live and attack you. Either people will agree with you or they wont. If you dont want anyone to ask then you shouldnt make posts like this one.

Quit trying to get me killed >.<
Oh, baby Neo's ascareded. It's okay, baby. Everything will be fine. Nobody can slap you from their computer screen or they would've already. :p

Fine, a theocracy but not one as strict as the ones in the Middle-Ages. Make it a bit flexible for different interpretations of scripture, but not too lax.

Fine, a theocracy but not one as strict as the ones in the Middle-Ages. Make it a bit flexible for different interpretations of scripture, but not too lax.
If I were born into such a government, I'd commit suicide, making sure to take the whole damn capitol building with me.

Fine, a theocracy but not one as strict as the ones in the Middle-Ages. Make it a bit flexible for different interpretations of scripture, but not too lax.

See that wasn't so bad I mean it's not like you're trying to rule the world like my Facist....errr Democratic Republic would through vio....kindness. :p

See that wasn't so bad I mean it's not like you're trying to rule the world like my Facist....errr Democratic Republic would through vio....kindness. :p

Plato's Republic for the win.

If I were born into such a government, I'd commit suicide, making sure to take the whole damn capitol building with me.


The capitol would be an impregnable fortress, with walls 100 feet thick :p

If I were born into such a government, I'd commit suicide, making sure to take the whole damn capitol building with me.

Right, way to prove Neo right in not wanting to post what her ideal government was. :rolleyes:

The capitol would be an impregnable fortress, with walls 100 feet thick/with a baskin robins/mega church built right in

I love the daily show. :rolleyes:

The capitol would be an impregnable fortress, with walls 100 feet thick :p

It better fly too, if it didn't fly I'd be pissed. :p

Holy God, the Creator, sanctified marriage as the union between a man and a woman.

Yeah and Allah this and Kali that....

How about talk about earth and not some made up crap a bunch of bullshit artists invented to control people?

Belief = Accepting incomplete data or reasoning as truth (usually because it appears easy or something?)
Faith = Accepting the beliefs of others over your own understanding.(Allowing yourself to be bullshitted)

Wake up.

The capitol would be an impregnable fortress, with walls 100 feet thick :p
Dammit! Fine, I'll just kill some random priest and use his blood as body paint, then run screaming towards the capitol building with a small flag in my hand that says "Theology Sucks; Free the People" after taking a swig of poison. And as I weaken and my legs give out on me, I'll manage to stick the flag into the ground and give one final dramatic scream. In one of my pockets will be a suicide note which includes detailed griping about the entire government system and why I felt my death was worthwhile, along with an apology to my friends and family for being so selfish.

Yeah and Allah this and Kali that....

How about talk about earth and not some made up crap a bunch of bullshit artists invented to control people?

Belief = Accepting incomplete data or reasoning as truth (usually because it appears easy or something?)
Faith = Accepting the beliefs of others over your own understanding.(Allowing yourself to be bullshitted)

Wake up.



Not again...*sigh* this is going to be the longest thread in the history of mankind :(

outlaw straight marriage. make gay the only kind allowed.

seriously, come on people. what the hell is so bad about gay marriage. you don't like those two gay guys down the street getting married?

MOVE YOUR ASS SOMEWHERE ELSE.

Not again...*sigh* this is going to be the longest thread in the history of mankind :(
Ha. Nationstates limits the length of threads. I've been on some threads in other forums where pointless spam threads have been hundreds of thousands of posts long.

Dammit! Fine, I'll just kill some random priest and use his blood as body paint, then run screaming towards the capitol building with a small flag in my hand that says "Theology Sucks; Free the People" after taking a swig of poison. And as I weaken and my legs give out on me, I'll manage to stick the flag into the ground and give one final dramatic scream. In one of my pockets will be a suicide note which includes detailed griping about the entire government system and why I felt my death was worthwhile, along with an apology to my friends and family for being so selfish.


Robot priests of course, no blood for you! :D

outlaw straight marriage. make gay the only kind allowed.

seriously, come on people. what the hell is so bad about gay marriage. you don't like those two gay guys down the street getting married?

MOVE YOUR ASS SOMEWHERE ELSE.
Ban same-marriage sex.

Robot priests of course, no blood for you! :D

*Waits for bad Judgment Day Joke* :p

Ban same-marriage sex.
Sex marriage-same ban. :confused:

If I were born into such a government, I'd commit suicide, making sure to take the whole damn capitol building with me.


Rome fell... The US will fall too. I don't even know if the war can be stopped at this point. The people of the US will think they are fighting some noble battle and then when it's over the history books will write about World War III, the war where the US and the UK attempted to take over the world and control it's resources, building space bombs and lasers and crap and bombing everyone with brown skin back to oblivian.

Kids will ask, "well, they were torturing over 22,000 people in their Military prisons, why didn't anyone stop them. There were laws..."

And then some teacher says, "We couldn't. They used eceonomic pressure and media propoganda to bring our governments into line. Most of the people were completely distracted.. They had no idea things were getting so bad... They were told that Capitalism would savethem and communism was bad... But both were bad and the war for ideology was fought the world over. Capitalist Fascists vs Communist Authoriative Nationalists like China..."

"The Socialist Deomcracies picked a side, and it was China, Italy brought chargtes against US CIA agents for kidnapping and torture inside Italy and it was pretty much the straw that broke the camels back... Going inside a European Country and kidnapping a Shiek to torture him with electro-shocks to the genitals..."

"The US was removed from the UN and though costly, began to contruct the ICC's Nuremburg II trial, in an attempt to do what it should have done in the first place,as the world mobilized for War against the previous saviours of the World, drunk with power and asolute decadence began their illegal assult on Iran, bringing about the start of World War III."

"As The US began to move into Iran, the European Unions forces to begin to offencive to liberate Iraq from the Americans and allow them to form their own government without the capitalist 'steal all your oil' clauses."

This is how I see the world in 5 years or less... Could happen at any time.


Please, if you are American, wake up and stop your government. Please...

Please, if you are American, wake up and stop your government. Please...

You do realize if the rest of the world goes to war with it a certain red button with not so fun consequences will most likely be pushed. The next world war will be either our last, or we're gonna be fighting number 4 with sticks and stones.

But this is neither here nor there so lets keep this thread on track.

<snip>

This is a thread on gay marriage not the state of the american government. Make another thread or dont hijack this one.

[snip]
Please, if you are American, wake up and stop your government. Please...
It's out of my hands.

im american and i know real true communism is a good thing(IMO)... my grandma doesnt like that.


heyyy about the gay marriage thing i thought the bible only said it was bad if it was for the wrong reaons, IE there were no people of your gender around and that was the only reason you were gay.

You do realize if the rest of the world goes to war with it a certain red button with not so fun consequences will most likely be pushed. The next world war will be either our last, or we're gonna be fighting number 4 with sticks and stones.


%100 Fully aware of it...

But, if we don't stand united prepared to lay down our lives to stop the Armed Aggression and Terrorism (Called Counter Terrorism or Low Intensity Warfare in the 'field guides') of the United States to stop the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and freedom fighters and the re-colonization of the middle east then we don't deserve to have a Declaration of Human Rights or the Geneva Conventions.
The free world will likely unite like they did last time Corporations gained control of the most powerful nation on earth. It might not be spoken about on US TV but it certainly is elsewhere in the world. To most countries, the US is the biggest threat to world peace, bar none. They just tiptoe around you hoping not to get crushed.

%100 Fully aware of it...

But, if we don't stand united prepared to lay down our lives to stop the Armed Aggression and Terrorism (Called Counter Terrorism or Low Intensity Warfare in the 'field guides') of the United States to stop the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and freedom fighters and the re-colonization of the middle east then we don't deserve to have a Declaration of Human Rights or the Geneva Conventions.
The free world will likely unite like they did last time Corporations gained control of the most powerful nation on earth. It might not be spoken about on US TV but it certainly is elsewhere in the world. To most countries, the US is the biggest threat to world peace, bar none. They just tiptoe around you hoping not to get crushed.

You know probably best to start a new thread for this instead of the [/Threadjack].

Yes, we all know the wicked US military executes hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi's :rolleyes:

You know, this whole thing has actually nothing at all to do with religion. It also has nothing to do with finding homosexuality disgusting, immoral or a mental illness. The only real question here is, is how does it hurt you, if someone else marries their same-sex partner?
Until you give a good answer, you haven't proven anything.

You know, this whole thing has actually nothing at all to do with religion. It also has nothing to do with finding homosexuality disgusting, immoral or a mental illness. The only real question here is, is how does it hurt you, if someone else marries their same-sex partner?
Until you give a good answer, you haven't proven anything.


We're past that hon, right now we're discussing how the US tortures tens of thousands of prisoners and executes hundreds of thousands of Iraqis because we're sadistic and all that.

We're past that hon, right now we're discussing how the US tortures tens of thousands of prisoners and executes hundreds of thousands of Iraqis because we're sadistic and all that.

Don't forget about the cabal of Jews that really run everything behind the scenes.

Don't forget about the cabal of Jews that really run everything behind the scenes.

And how Dick Chaney is really pulling the strings while Bush is a puppet. :rolleyes:

We're past that hon, right now we're discussing how the US tortures tens of thousands of prisoners and executes hundreds of thousands of Iraqis because we're sadistic and all that.
Are we really past that? Because I don't seem to recall an answer explaining it. Besides, a discussion about torture should probably be in a different thread. Unless you want to call the current marriage law torture :) .
So again, how does it hurt you when somebody else marries their same-sex parter? Because I don't see how it can.

The next world war will be either our last, or we're gonna be fighting number 4 with sticks and stones.

Ha ha, Einstein

And how Dick Chaney is really pulling the strings while Bush is a puppet. :rolleyes:

Corporations are teh n00b!!!!!111!!!!!!11

I love a good threadjack once in a while.

Are we really past that? Because I don't seem to recall an answer explaining it. Besides, a discussion about torture should probably be in a different thread. Unless you want to call the current marriage law torture .
So again, how does it hurt you when somebody else marries their same-sex parter? Because I don't see how it can.


I've answered it several times, review the entire thread.

I've answered it several times, review the entire thread.
Haha, are you kidding me?
Listen, I've been following this a few days now, but there's no way I can keep up with this. I do have a job, you know.
I do remember that the previous times I or anybody else raised this issue, there was no response. So, could you tell me what happens to you that is so bad that the rest of country should be denied this basic right, the right to equal treatment?

Haha, are you kidding me?
Listen, I've been following this a few days now, but there's no way I can keep up with this. I do have a job, you know.
I do remember that the previous times I or anybody else raised this issue, there was no response. So, could you tell me what happens to you that is so bad that the rest of country should be denied this basic right, the right to equal treatment?



As I stated earlier, I don't mind them having equal rights as long as the government does not equate their union to a marriage, which is sanctified by God. They can call it a "lifelong partnership" or something else, but marriage? I don't think so.

So, could you tell me what happens to you that is so bad that the rest of country should be denied this basic right, the right to equal treatment?

Nothing happens, there isn’t anything wrong with it. Neo Rogolia just doesn’t understand that you can disagree with something, and still allow others to do it.

As I stated earlier, I don't mind them having equal rights as long as the government does not equate their union to a marriage, which is sanctified by God. They can call it a "lifelong partnership" or something else, but marriage? I don't think so.

How does calling it marriage hurt you? Christian marriages are sanctioned by God, sure. You do, however, realize that many cultures that do not practice Christianity have marriage. Don’t you?

As I stated earlier, I don't mind them having equal rights as long as the government does not equate their union to a marriage, which is sanctified by God. They can call it a "lifelong partnership" or something else, but marriage? I don't think so.
So you have basically made the claim that the term marriage is an exclusive christian term which involves god in it?

How does calling it marriage hurt you? Christian marriages are sanctioned by God, sure. You do, however, realize that many cultures that do not practice Christianity have marriage. Don’t you?



Marriage in the US, by default, is religious. Personally, I liked the idea of making civil unions the standard and allowing churches to make certain civil unions a marriage. That way, at least the government isn't slapping God in the face.

Oh, but don't you see you are wrong? Or have you not read any texts from apologists?

You mean the apologists that you personally agree with?

You have already pointed out that all apologists don't appeal to you.

Of course, you're perfect, so anything you don't agree with must be wrong, eh?

As I stated earlier, I don't mind them having equal rights as long as the government does not equate their union to a marriage, which is sanctified by God. They can call it a "lifelong partnership" or something else, but marriage? I don't think so.
Marriage is not by law sanctified by God. The fact that you would like to believe your marriage is, is ok and your civil right, but doesn't make it law. It also doesn't make any of the other marriages sanctified by God. What about all the people right now getting married being atheists? They are hapy their marriage isn't sanctified by God and would like to keep it that way.
Besides, you're also breaching another civil right, namely the right of free religion. There are churches out there who are convinced God is ok with gay marriage, but they cannot practice this because of the current law. Are these religions less worthy than yours in your eyes?
And, when we do allow homosexuals to get married, do you think that that would change Gods mind in any way? If He feels it is wrong, do you think He will let Himself be convinced by some heritic human law? There are probably more laws in act right now that defy Gods will, and that has probably not changed His opinion, nor that of the church, nor that of you.
Plus, you still have the legal right to disagree with all of this.

So, how does it hurt you? Which of your rights will be denied when this law is made?

We follow the example set by Christ and his ordained apostles.

No, you follow what you believe to be said example.

Others disagree with you and still believe that they are following said example.

Again, what makes you personally better than them? What makes you more infallible than them? What makes your personal interpretation of the Bible infallible?

You mean the apologists that you personally agree with?

You have already pointed out that all apologists don't appeal to you.

Of course, you're perfect, so anything you don't agree with must be wrong, eh?


I'm sorry, you're a little too late. We've already settled this issue, that is unless you want the heated Paul-discussions to flare up again. By the way, you're whole "Of course, you're perfect" thing got old a long time ago. If you're going to insult me, at least find some more creative material ;)

Marriage in the US, by default, is religious. Personally, I liked the idea of making civil unions the standard and allowing churches to make certain civil unions a marriage. That way, at least the government isn't slapping God in the face.

In modern times, the term marriage is generally reserved for a state sanctioned union.-Wikipedia

It appears Wikipedia seems to disagree with this assumption. Marriages are not by default religious.

Couples usually seek social sanction for their marriages, and many societies require official approval of a religious or civil body. Sociologists thus distinguish between a marriage ceremony conducted under the auspices of a religion and a state-sanctioned civil marriage.-Wikipedia

Read back a few (or a trillion, it's hard to remember with this thread ballooning at such a rate) pages, and you will see I really have no problem with equal rights for homosexuals, just having the government say that their union is sanctified by God.

Darling, the government doesn't say that *any* union is sanctified by God. In fact, they don't claim "sanctitiy" at all. They simply do the blood test (where it is required) and have you sign the papers - which are already purely secular.

If your problem is the government recognizing civil marriage as being sanctified by God, you have no problem. It has never been done.

No, you follow what you believe to be said example.

Others disagree with you and still believe that they are following said example.

Again, what makes you personally better than them? What makes you more infallible than them? What makes your personal interpretation of the Bible infallible?


I follow the example in the Bible, the same example we are all to follow. End of discussion. If you disagree, take it up with God, not me. Good night.

There are churches out there who are convinced God is ok with gay marriage, but they cannot practice this because of the current law

those chuchs r teh n00b!111!1!11!! theyz b WRONG!!!!!11!!

Marriage in the US, by default, is religious. Personally, I liked the idea of making civil unions the standard and allowing churches to make certain civil unions a marriage. That way, at least the government isn't slapping God in the face.

Orthodox Christianity does not have a monopoly on marriage. Almost every other religion on the planet has marriage in some form or another. And what about those who get married by justices of the peace, and specifically told them not to mention God?

I said I wouldn't mind it, but did I ever say I wanted it? Quit being so presumptuous.

If you wouldn't mind it, then you aren't at all ineterested in providing equal protection to all people.

In modern times, the term marriage is generally reserved for a state sanctioned union.-Wikipedia

It appears Wikipedia seems to disagree with this assumption. Marriages are not by default religious.

Couples usually seek social sanction for their marriages, and many societies require official approval of a religious or civil body. Sociologists thus distinguish between a marriage ceremony conducted under the auspices of a religion and a state-sanctioned civil marriage.-Wikipedia



Yes, the Bible is fallible but Wikipedia is infallible :rolleyes:


This is the US, there is a reason why a priest is necessary to to legalize a marriage.

I follow the example in the Bible, the same example we are all to follow. End of discussion. If you disagree, take it up with God, not me. Good night.

But since god cant answer the phone right now you will have to do. You expect everyone to follow your religion. The problem is not everyone agrees with you. You can believe what you want. But to force it on others because you assume you are right and because of that others beliefs matter less is arogance beyond measure.

Edit:Yes, the Bible is fallible but Wikipedia is infallible :rolleyes: This is the US, there is a reason why a priest is necessary to to legalize a marriage.

Yes because a book asking us to believe a story about a guy who walks on water and wants us to eat his flesh is any more believeable then a website that uses facts. And a priest is not necessary to legalize a marriage. Justice of the peace anyone?

Fine, a theocracy but not one as strict as the ones in the Middle-Ages. Make it a bit flexible for different interpretations of scripture, but not too lax.

Cool, as long as you don't mind your religion getting horribly corrupted.

Yes, the Bible is fallible but Wikipedia is infallible :rolleyes:


This is the US, there is a reason why a priest is necessary to to legalize a marriage.

Yea, because the bible is so much more of a reliable source. :rolleyes:

This is the US, there is a reason why a priest is necessary to to legalize a marriage.

ROFL. You just destroyed your last bit of credibility. Not to mention, made yourself look like an idiot

Yea, because the bible is so much more of a reliable source.


I would trust the word of God a little more than the word of an online encyclopedia ;)

I've answered it several times, review the entire thread.

No, you haven't.

Your answer has been, "It hurts my church for a completely secular arrangement between two people of the same sex to be called the same thing that my church happens to call a union between a man and a woman! How dare anyone else use English!??!?!?!"

I follow the example in the Bible, the same example we are all to follow. End of discussion. If you disagree, take it up with God, not me. Good night.
This statement basically says that we all have to live by how you choose to interpret the bible. The law of the USA says we all have a right to choose our own way of life. That doesn't add up, as you might have noticed.
I think that if you honestly feel this way, you are not at all fit for democracy. Because the basic point of a democracy is that you can't force people to have your opinion.
Blaming God by the way is very weak. That's like killing someone by means of throwing stones at them and then saying "But it says to do so in the bible!" I think you would agree with me that that isn't the way to go about this.
So, how are you actually being hurt by the same-sex marriage law? You still haven't explained me, and if you don't I will be left to make assumptions.

I'm sorry, you're a little too late. We've already settled this issue, that is unless you want the heated Paul-discussions to flare up again. By the way, you're whole "Of course, you're perfect" thing got old a long time ago. If you're going to insult me, at least find some more creative material ;)

First of all, I will state my mind if I want to - this is a thread I am allowed to post on.

Second of all, I don't need new material - you are still acting as if you are perfect. Your holier-than-thou attitude is not only incredibly un-Christ-like, but it belies what is most likely an underlying lack of faith. If you find that insulting, stop trying to claim that you are the end authority on the Bible and how to view it.

ROFL. You just destroyed your last bit of credibility. Not to mention, made yourself look like an idiot


Yes, on second thought I forgot about justices of the peace. Of course, this one error is far more grave than the many errors of biblical knowledge displayed in this thread :rolleyes:

I would trust the word of God a little more than the word of an online encyclopedia ;)

You mean a book that was written by guys who didnt know Jesus and was put together by a council of fallible men who were arguing about what version of christianity was right? Can I introduce you to my friend who is selling the brooklyn bridge?

I would trust the word of God a little more than the word of an online encyclopedia ;)

And I'll trust the thing that wasn't written a a long time ago in a galaxy far far away. ;)

I follow the example in the Bible, the same example we are all to follow. End of discussion. If you disagree, take it up with God, not me. Good night.
I follow the example written in the 1999 Ford Contour Owners Manual. And ye shall change the oil every 3,000 miles or be damned.

I follow the example in the Bible, the same example we are all to follow. End of discussion. If you disagree, take it up with God, not me. Good night.

Wrong again. You follow your personal interpretation of the Bible.

If you can't admit that, you are claiming infallibility - a sin of arrogance, I do believe. There are just as many interpretations of Christianity as there are Christians. To claim that your own is 100% right is outrageous.

Yes, on second thought I forgot about justices of the peace. Of course, this one error is far more grave than the many errors of biblical knowledge displayed in this thread :rolleyes:

Because the bible is the end all be all on this subject, especially for those who don't believe. :rolleyes:

This statement basically says that we all have to live by how you choose to interpret the bible. The law of the USA says we all have a right to choose our own way of life. That doesn't add up, as you might have noticed.
I think that if you honestly feel this way, you are not at all fit for democracy. Because the basic point of a democracy is that you can't force people to have your opinion.
Blaming God by the way is very weak. That's like killing someone by means of throwing stones at them and then saying "But it says to do so in the bible!" I think you would agree with me that that isn't the way to go about this.
So, how are you actually being hurt by the same-sex marriage law? You still haven't explained me, and if you don't I will be left to make assumptions.


I'm not repeating myself AGAIN. I have other people to respond to you know, why not take the time to review my other posts and maybe you'll find the answer in them? I'm not super-woman.

This is the US, there is a reason why a priest is necessary to to legalize a marriage.

You cannot really be this uninformed.

All you need to obtain a marriage license in the US is to go down to the courthouse and get one from a justice of the peace.

Yes, on second thought I forgot about justices of the peace. Of course, this one error is far more grave than the many errors of disagreement with my personal interpretation of Scripture displayed in this thread :rolleyes:

Corrections in bold.

Because the bible is the end all be all on this subject, especially for those who don't believe.



And we all know those who haven't studied the Bible much at all are scholars qualified to criticize it :rolleyes:

I'm not repeating myself AGAIN. I have other people to respond to you know, why not take the time to review my other posts and maybe you'll find the answer in them? I'm not super-woman.

Ok, I'll answer for you since I have read your posts:

Neo:
"Same sex marriage hurts me because I think only my personal church should have access to the use of English words. It doesn't matter that civil marriage is completely secular. It doesn't matter that some religions sanction same-sex marriage. It doesn't matter that we have a little thing called the Constitution. I am right and therefore only the people I say so should be able to use the English words that I appropriate for my church."

I'm not repeating myself AGAIN. I have other people to respond to you know, why not take the time to review my other posts and maybe you'll find the answer in them? I'm not super-woman.
Well, you say that you won't respond again, but you haven't given a valid reason. The reasons that you have given would all be valid if the USA were a theocracy.
God has the ability to deny people into heaven if they have sinned, right? If homosexuality then is a sin, as you believe, don't you think that God would still send them to hell even if they were married? Or do you think that USA law is Gods law?

And we all know those who haven't studied the Bible much at all are scholars qualified to criticize it :rolleyes:

What a silly assumption to make. Many scholars who have spent more time than the majority of Christians studying Scripture don't believe it. In truth, a rabbi generally knows more about NT scripture than most Christians.

Corrections in bold.



And Jesus said unto his disciples "Verily I say unto thee: the wisdom and morals of man are greater than those of the Father. He who disregards half of what I say will be exalted and he who follows my will will be humbled."

And we all know those who haven't studied the Bible much at all are scholars qualified to criticize it :rolleyes:

One does not need to study something to criticize it. It might not be relevent or very well done criticism, but that doesn't mean they can't do it now can they?

What a silly assumption to make. Many scholars who have spent more time than the majority of Christians studying Scripture don't believe it. In truth, a rabbi generally knows more about NT scripture than most Christians.



I know some Christian scholars who beg to differ ;)

You know at 126 pages, and no one really changing there point of view, or bringing up a lot of new criticisms I've just got to ask everyone...Hows the merry-go-round?

This entire arguement is stupid, no one is going to win. Althought I disagree with Neo on most points, I respect her for not giving in and standing up for what she believes. Please let this thread die, no one is going to convince the reast of the world that they are right.

And Jesus said unto his disciples "Verily I say unto thee: the wisdom and morals of man are greater than those of the Father. He who disregards half of what I say will be exalted and he who follows my will will be humbled."

You know quoting the bible doesnt really work on people who dont believe it in the first place.

Back to the arguement at hand. We have already disproven your assumption that marriage is only a religious affair in the US and that a priest is required. So tell me again why gays shouldnt be allowed to have a secular marriage?

One does not need to study something to criticize it. It might not be relevent or very well done criticism, but that doesn't mean they can't do it now can they?



Personally, I would rather criticism of that which one has not studied in-depth should be outlawed :D Sure, I would lose the right to criticize many things too, but it would save me a lot of time correcting misinformed atheists :(

I dunno I think someone needs to summarize this thread.

Personally, I would rather criticism of that which one has not studied in-depth should be outlawed :D Sure, I would lose the right to criticize many things too, but it would save me a lot of time correcting misinformed atheists :(

It would save everyone a lot of time in arguments. :p

I dunno I think someone needs to summarize this thread.

*Nominates Sumamba*

You know quoting the bible doesnt really work on people who dont believe it in the first place.

Back to the arguement at hand. We have already disproven your assumption that marriage is only a religious affair in the US and that a priest is required. So tell me again why gays shouldnt be allowed to have a secular marriage?
Eh, that's actually not what I think is the issue. Gays should be also allowed a religious marriage. Same rights, remember? Maybe not in Neos church, but by law they should be allowed to marry religiously.

*Nominates Sumamba*

Seconds this nomination. :p

And Jesus said unto his disciples "Verily I say unto thee: the wisdom and morals of man are greater than those of the Father. He who disregards half of what I say will be exalted and he who follows my will will be humbled."

THat does not in any way support you in your crusade that your personal interpretation be considered absolutely correct.

I dunno I think someone needs to summarize this thread.



Some people believe gay marriage is bad. Some believe it is good. Multiply those two sentences times about 1500 posts and the product will be this thread :D

Eh, that's actually not what I think is the issue. Gays should be also allowed a religious marriage. Same rights, remember? Maybe not in Neos church, but by law they should be allowed to marry religiously.

Not really. Government is supposed to allow freedom of religion and is not allowed to make a state religion. The issue here is the civil institution of marriage and the rights that accompany it. I dont give two flying ***** about churches saying gays cant get married in them. I do care about the government denying a group of people rights because they are different.

I know some Christian scholars who beg to differ ;)

Last time I checked, all Christians are not Christian scholars.

And any Christian scholar would be well aware that a rabbi is generally more studied in scripture than your average Christian.

THat does not in any way support you in your crusade that your personal interpretation be considered absolutely correct.



Nor does denying the validity of the greater portion of the NT support you ;)

This entire arguement is stupid, no one is going to win. Althought I disagree with Neo on most points, I respect her for not giving in and standing up for what she believes. Please let this thread die, no one is going to convince the reast of the world that they are right.

You respect someone for demonstrating a clear inability to even think about anyone else's POV? That isn't "standing up for what you believe in." It is arrogantly holding that your own views are completelyl correct.

Meanwhile, I don't want to convince everyone that I am right. I know that I am fallible. I simply won't stand for someone else claiming that they are absolutely right and that I am not following my own faith because I don't follow theirs.

Some people believe gay marriage is bad. Some believe it is good. Multiply those two sentences times about 1500 posts and the product will be this thread :D

And some people think they are the ultimate authority on Scripture and Christianity, despite the fact that the only person who can claim that is Christ himself.

Not really. Government is supposed to allow freedom of religion and is not allowed to make a state religion. The issue here is the civil institution of marriage and the rights that accompany it. I dont give two flying ***** about churches saying gays cant get married in them. I do care about the government denying a group of people rights because they are different.
You're right. :)

Nor does denying the validity of the greater portion of the NT support you ;)

Well then it is probably a good thing that I haven't done any such thing, isn't it?

But Neo Rogolia, does changing this USA law change Gods law? I don't know much about religion, so please enlighten me.

Last time I checked, all Christians are not Christian scholars.

And any Christian scholar would be well aware that a rabbi is generally more studied in scripture than your average Christian.



And that proves that a rabbi is more versed in Biblical knowledge than a Christian scholar how? I never said the layman retains more knowledge than the rabbi. I disagreed, though, when you said the average atheist knows more about the subject than the person who specializes in Christian studies.

And that proves that a rabbi is more versed in Biblical knowledge than a Christian scholar how? I never said the layman retains more knowledge than the rabbi. I disagreed, though, when you said the average atheist knows more about the subject than the person who specializes in Christian studies.

I never said any such thing.

Let's try our best at picturing this from God's point of view: You condemned homosexuality. One of the nations of your creation is attempting to allow homosexual marriage. Are you pleased?

You respect someone for demonstrating a clear inability to even think about anyone else's POV? That isn't "standing up for what you believe in." It is arrogantly holding that your own views are completelyl correct.

Meanwhile, I don't want to convince everyone that I am right. I know that I am fallible. I simply won't stand for someone else claiming that they are absolutely right and that I am not following my own faith because I don't follow theirs.

You took one sentence from whole post and attacked it, read the rest. I never said I agreed with her. Besides you, by argueing on this topic, are saying that you are right and she is wrong. The only way to not say you are right is by not argueing. She is showing arrogance, but so are you.

Well then it is probably a good thing that I haven't done any such thing, isn't it?


The epistles of Paul, the man you regard as fallible in his teachings, comprise a good deal of the NT.

Let's try our best at picturing this from God's point of view: You condemned homosexuality. One of the nations of your creation is attempting to allow homosexual marriage. Are you pleased?

God's POV doesnt matter. We are talking about a secular state marriage here.

Let's try our best at picturing this from God's point of view: You condemned homosexuality. One of the nations of your creation is attempting to allow homosexual marriage. Are you pleased?
Let's try it from Matthew Shepard's perspective.

Or the God that many seem to believe in that DIDN'T condemn homosexuality. By the way, I never saw a convincing defense of the translations of passages as you see them. Where's your justification in the original Hebrew/Aramaic? Hint: There isn't one.

And some people think they are the ultimate authority on Scripture and Christianity, despite the fact that the only person who can claim that is Christ himself.


And a pinch of people who deny Christ by denying his apostles :)

Let's try our best at picturing this from what I think is God's point of view: You condemned homosexuality. One of the nations of your creation is attempting to allow homosexual marriage. Are you pleased?

Corrections in bold.

Now, if we assume that your personal interpretation of God's will is correct, then no - God would not be pleased.

However, the God in Scripture has made it quite clear that there would also be no divine intervention. Christ was quite clear that we should teach by example, not by force. Even your darling Paul never suggested that we should force our morals upon others, but that we should avoid interaction with those who disagree with us.

You took one sentence from whole post and attacked it, read the rest. I never said I agreed with her. Besides you, by argueing on this topic, are saying that you are right and she is wrong. The only way to not say you are right is by not argueing. She is showing arrogance, but so are you.

Incorrect.

I am stating that my opinion is different from hers and that she has no right to condemn me for it. I have admitted more than once that she might be correct.

Let's try our best at picturing this from God's point of view: You condemned homosexuality. One of the nations of your creation is attempting to allow homosexual marriage. Are you pleased?
Probably not. But ten again, He has a lot to not be pleased about already.

I understand that you see it this way and believe this to be that absolute truth, but don't you think that I may make a conscious choice about going to hell?

The epistles of Paul, the man you regard as fallible in his teachings, comprise a good deal of the NT.

Fallible does not mean completely wrong.

I don't throw out Paul's teachings. He was a Christian teacher, just as my theology prof was. And, being a little closer to the actual events, was probably even more aware of them.

All I have claimed is that Paul is not infallible, just as all humans are not infallible. We view God's teachings through our own eyes and our own experiences. You have claimed that Paul was more-than-man in this property.

Let's try it from Matthew Shepard's perspective.

Or the God that many seem to believe in that DIDN'T condemn homosexuality. By the way, I never saw a convincing defense of the translations of passages as you see them. Where's your justification in the original Hebrew/Aramaic? Hint: There isn't one.



That's a very selective memory you have. I have but one thing to say in response that I've said many times already: Romans 1.

Incorrect.

I am stating that my opinion is different from hers and that she has no right to condemn me for it. I have admitted more than once that she might be correct.

Then why bother? You obviously arn't changing her point of view, and shes not changing yours... so just let the whole thing die and agree to disagree.

And a pinch of people who deny Christ by denying his apostles :)

Your personal attacks and wild accusations are cute, my dear, but they are indicitive of the underlying problems with your part in this entire discourse - namely, the assumption in all of it that you cannot possibly be incorrect about anything.

Then why bother? You obviously arn't changing her point of view, and shes not changing yours... so just let the whole thing die and agree to disagree.

I have offered to agree to disagree more than once.

She has still attacked me personally and claimed that no other opinion could possibly be as valid as her personal view.

That's a very selective memory you have. I have but one thing to say in response that I've said many times already: Romans 1.
And then I posted a link which said that your translation fo Romans 1 was flat-out false. Christian Bibles distorted several passages from the original Hebrew/Aramaic way back when the Bible was being standardized to support their viewpoint. Romans 1 is a) mistranslated and b) unclear. You ignored it then and undoubtably will ignore it now.

And also ignore the human casualties of second-class gay citizenship (Hence Matthew Shepard).

Fallible does not mean completely wrong.

I don't throw out Paul's teachings. He was a Christian teacher, just as my theology prof was. And, being a little closer to the actual events, was probably even more aware of them.

All I have claimed is that Paul is not infallible, just as all humans are not infallible. We view God's teachings through our own eyes and our own experiences. You have claimed that Paul was more-than-man in this property.


Yes, you don't think he's completely wrong....just wrong on the things you dislike :rolleyes:. Hmm, women being silent in church....yeah, that's going to be wrong. Hmm, homosexuality being condemned......that's, going to be wrong too. Hmm, rebuking and reproving sinners instead of being complacent...oh dear, that might require me to say unpopular things that would hurt people's feelings! Does that sum it up well enough?

Then why bother? You obviously arn't changing her point of view, and shes not changing yours... so just let the whole thing die and agree to disagree.

"I pass to an observation of the late Sir Karl Popper, who could himself be a tyrant in argument but who nunetheless recognised that argument was valuable, indeed essential, for its own sake. It is very seldom, as he noticed , that in debate any one of two evenly matched antagonists will succeed in actually convincing or "converting" the other. But it is equally seldom that in a properly conducted argument either antagonist will end up holding exactly the same position as that with which he began. Concessions, refinements and adjustments will occur, and each initial position will have undergone modification even if it remains ostensibly the "same." Not even the most apparently glacial "system" is immune to this rule."-Christopher Hitchens

And also ignore the human casualties of second-class gay citizenship (Hence Matthew Shepard).


Murder is irrelevant, is it not? They committed a crime, where is a crime being committed here? That is, if voting according to my beliefs is suddenly a crime...

Yes, you don't think he's completely wrong....just wrong on the things you dislike :rolleyes:. Hmm, women being silent in church....yeah, that's going to be wrong. Hmm, homosexuality being condemned......that's, going to be wrong too. Hmm, rebuking and reproving sinners instead of being complacent...oh dear, that might require me to say unpopular things that would hurt people's feelings! Does that sum it up well enough?

Hmm other christians offer up an interpretation of the bible differently then you. Convinantly they are automatically wrong because they differ from your position. Dont you think it is arrogant to assume you are always right on issues with the bible. I mean people come up with a different point of view from a passage and you flat out deny them any credibility. You said you simply follow the bible but when other people mention it unless it conforms to your definitions which may or may not be right you say its wrong.

And then I posted a link which said that your translation fo Romans 1 was flat-out false. Christian Bibles distorted several passages from the original Hebrew/Aramaic way back when the Bible was being standardized to support their viewpoint. Romans 1 is a) mistranslated and b) unclear. You ignored it then and undoubtably will ignore it now.



Are you sure you aren't thinking of 1 Corinthians? Regardless, when this thread finally cools down again, I'll go research a response to those accusations.

"I pass to an observation of the late Sir Karl Popper, who could himself be a tyrant in argument but who nunetheless recognised that argument was valuable, indeed essential, for its own sake. It is very seldom, as he noticed , that in debate any one of two evenly matched antagonists will succeed in actually convincing or "converting" the other. But it is equally seldom that in a properly conducted argument either antagonist will end up holding exactly the same position as that whith which he began. Concessions, refinements and adjustments will occur, and each initial position will have undergone modification even if it remains ostensibly the "same." Not even the most apparently glacial "system" is immune to this rule."-Christopher Hitchens

Assuming the arguement ends...

Murder is irrelevant, is it not? They committed a crime, where is a crime being committed here? That is, if voting according to my beliefs is suddenly a crime...
Prejudice is institutional. When the government says "This group of citizens aren't as good as this group of citizens" and acquires the ability to classify life in the manner it sees fit, people view it as OK to discriminate against and hurt those people because they aren't as good as you and I. The people who killed Matthew Shepard a) believed they were doing God's work and b) were inspired by a society that refuses to accept gays as legitimate individuals, and institutionalizes that discrimination.

Commandment 6: Thou shalt not kill.

Yes, you don't think he's completely wrong....just wrong on the things you dislike :rolleyes:. Hmm, women being silent in church....yeah, that's going to be wrong. Hmm, homosexuality being condemned......that's, going to be wrong too. Hmm, rebuking and reproving sinners instead of being complacent...oh dear, that might require me to say unpopular things that would hurt people's feelings! Does that sum it up well enough?

No, in fact it is pretty much completely made up on your part and has already been completely disputed in this thread, from the very first sentence onward.

Let's see:

The first problem is "the things you dislike". As I pointed out originally, it has nothing to do with like and dislike, but with God's guidance as provided to me through prayer.

The second is "homosexuality being condemned". For anyone who has researched beyond "I got me an English translation and I'm going to assume it is perfect," there is just as much evidence that homosexuality is not condemned as there is that homosexuality is condemned. This is especially true when you realize that loving relationships, even of the romantic kind, between two homosexuals are not mentioned even once in the Bible. What is mentioned is prohibitions against "leaving natural uses", "burning with lust", etc. Interestingly enough, there are similar prohibitions against this same behavior in heterosexuals. Of course, if I was like you and assumed that my personal beliefs had to be right no matter what, then I mgith go your way - but I don't assume any such thing.

And, as I have incredibly clearly pointed out numerous times, I have no problem with you rebuking those who you believe to be sinners. I do the same, although in a much calmer manner than you that might actually get them to listen to me. What I have argued against is using the force of law to enforce your morals upon others. If you can't see the difference, a dictionary might be a good idea.

Hmm other christians offer up an interpretation of the bible differently then you. Convinantly they are automatically wrong because they differ from your position. Dont you think it is arrogant to assume you are always right on issues with the bible. I mean people come up with a different point of view from a passage and you flat out deny them any credibility. You said you simply follow the bible but when other people mention it unless it conforms to your definitions which may or may not be right you say its wrong.



Some things aren't up to interpretation. Two of the things I mentioned in there necessitate the rejection of Paul's infallibility in order for them to be disregarded. If the topic is something very vague, like Revelation, then I have no qualms with disagreement, as nobody can be certain of what that could mean. However, on the obvious things Paul mentions....no. Rejection of them is nothing short of blatant apostasy...and it is not just I who say this.

Some things aren't up to interpretation. Two of the things I mentioned in there necessitate the rejection of Paul's infallibility in order for them to be disregarded. If the topic is something very vague, like Revelation, then I have no qualms with disagreement, as nobody can be certain of what that could mean. However, on the obvious things Paul mentions....no. Rejection of them is nothing short of blatant apostasy...and it is not just I who say this.

This is assuming your interpretation of christianity is correct. What makes your sect of christianity any more valid then roman catholicism or russian orthodoxy?

Are you sure you aren't thinking of 1 Corinthians? Regardless, when this thread finally cools down again, I'll go research a response to those accusations.
Nope, here's the link:http://www.gayxjw.org/bible.html
It explains how there's no noun for homosexuality in Greek, and the original verbs used denoted idolatry rather than other Greek words which could have been chosen to denote homosexual actions.

Further, I did research on the mistranslations and it bears out. I put a Christian Bible next to a Hebrew Bible and there were several discrepancies - all of which changing the original Hebrew into more Christian-friendly language.

Yes, it's sad they maintain that stance in spite of all evidence to the contrary. Also, I am not Catholic but the new pope seems to disagree with anything that man says, so wouldn't his entire arguments as a Catholic be nullified because they contradicted the pope?

And to me, it is sad that you are so blinded by the words of Paul (because they prop up your smug self-assured moral superiority) that you have become a follower of Paul rather than a follower of Christ. there are numerous examples in which the words of Paul directly contradict the teachings of JESUS.

But so many of you would prefer to follow Paul, because Paul tells you what you want to hear...and he lets you habg on to your oh-so-comfortable bigotries and prejudices and petty hatreds.

I personally reject out of hand, anything written by Paul.

He was a waste of skin.

The first problem is "the things you dislike". As I pointed out originally, it has nothing to do with like and dislike, but with God's guidance as provided to me through prayer.


If God's guidance contradicts God's will in the Bible, wouldn't that imply that the guidance came from a different source? I'm not trying to be disrespectful to you, but have you considered that?

This is assuming your interpretation of christianity is correct. What makes your sect of christianity any more valid then roman catholicism or russian orthodoxy?



Whichever adheres to the commandments of Christ and his apostles in the Bible is the correct interpretation. That is what I base my faith upon.

Whichever adheres to the commandments of Christ and his apostles in the Bible is the correct interpretation. That is what I base my faith upon.

And that would be every sect in the Christian religion. You really dont answer why any other christian sects are less valid then your ones interpretation.

Then let us see you perform a miracle. God, Christ, and the apostles were capable of performing miracles, which justifies their claim :)

Hmmm... lessee here, Neo....you need to SEE a miracle from -Everyknowledge- to believe in his Divinity...but you don't need to SEE a miracle from God, Christ or any of the apostles to believe in their Divinity...or their Divine inspiration?

You take the word of others that these miracles occured, on face value, with no proof other than the eyewitnesses that reported them.

Well, what if I told you I saw -Everyknowledge- turn water into wine at my backyard barbeque last weekend? Is that good enough for you?

If so, then why do you question -Everyknowledge-'s claim to Divinity?
If not, then why is my word no good, yet the words of others, whom you never knew or met IS good enough for you, with no proof of any kind other than their own say-so?

If God's guidance contradicts God's will in the Bible, wouldn't that imply that the guidance came from a different source? I'm not trying to be disrespectful to you, but have you considered that?

Or perhaps that God's will in the bible is wrong. I'm not trying to be disrepectful to you, but have you considered that? :rolleyes:

And to me, it is sad that you are so blinded by the words of Paul (because they prop up your smug self-assured moral superiority) that you have become a follower of Paul rather than a follower of Christ. there are numerous examples in which the words of Paul directly contradict the teachings of JESUS.

But so many of you would prefer to follow Paul, because Paul tells you what you want to hear...and he lets you habg on to your oh-so-comfortable bigotries and prejudices and petty hatreds.

I personally reject out of hand, anything written by Paul.

He was a waste of skin.



Are you referring to how Paul claims salvation by faith and Christ claims salvation by faith and works? In those cases, it is not a contradiction. One is more detailed and has exceptions or additions. You go with the more detailed one. Another example is the command in one gospel to not divorce and the command in another to not divorce without adultery being involved. They do not contradict one another, one is merely an extension upon the original statement.

Or perhaps that God's will in the bible is wrong. I'm not trying to be disrepectful to you, but have you considered that?



If so, then we might as well throw out the entire Christian religion as we won't know a thing. Congratulations, that was a brilliant suggestion :rolleyes:

If so, then we might as well throw out the entire Christian religion as we won't know a thing. Congratulations, that was a brilliant suggestion :rolleyes:

No that was more sarcasm to point out how you dont consider anyone elses point of view to be correct except yours.

Hmmm... lessee here, Neo....you need to SEE a miracle from -Everyknowledge- to believe in his Divinity...but you don't need to SEE a miracle from God, Christ or any of the apostles to believe in their Divinity...or their Divine inspiration?

You take the word of others that these miracles occured, on face value, with no proof other than the eyewitnesses that reported them.

Well, what if I told you I saw -Everyknowledge- turn water into wine at my backyard barbeque last weekend? Is that good enough for you?

If so, then why do you question -Everyknowledge-'s claim to Divinity?
If not, then why is my word no good, yet the words of others, whom you never knew or met IS good enough for you, with no proof of any kind other than their own say-so?


Fine, if you want to reject the evidence of eyewitnesses of miracles then how about another suggestion: Let us see him make a prophecy, not a vague one that has a 50% chance of occuring, but a very specific one...and let us see it come to pass :)

Originally posted by: Neo Rogolia
God gave people free will.

I will concede to that point, but i'm pretty sure the tsunami last December didn't have a will of its own. :D

And as for that Judgement Day crack: That kind of elitist attitude doesn't help bring people to Jesus. It just ticks people off. And with good reason

Evangelicals in general tick people off...and with good reason. Largely it is because of the way in which they deliver the message with such a smug air of self-superiority. Most evangelicals are REALLY BAD at evangelizing, but very good at ticking people off.

Because we understand their TRUE motivation. Their true motivation isn't to "save" anyone, or bring them closer to Christ...their TRUE motivation is to puff out their chest and wear their self-superiority on their sleeve.

their other true motivation is to PUNISH others for failing to recognize THEIR (the evangelical's) self-superiority.

If you want to bring someone to Christ...you don't come to them with a message as comforting as a crown of thorns, and deliver that message like a self-righteous, pompous asshole. You don't condemn them, put them down, or try to make their lives miserable by denying them joy, happiness, rights, a livelihood...and then expect them to say, "oh, thank you so much for treasting me like dirt...of course I see you are right and I am wrong!! i'll immediately change my beliefs and views to suit you!!"

Because, guess what...that isn't how your message is going to be received. Instead, the method you choose to use, pisses people off, turns them off to God and Jesus, and basically makes them look for absolution elsewhere...figuring, well, if God and Jesus will not give me peace, joy, happiness and absolution...if all He will give me is hate wrath, fire, hell, brimstone...well, hell, I'll go find absolution somewhere else.

Y'all evangelicals are basically doing the work of the Morning Star, did you know that?

No that was more sarcasm to point out how you dont consider anyone elses point of view to be correct except yours.


Umm...logic would dictate that only one interpretation could be correct. If I regarded mine and hers as correct, then there would be a contradiction.

Fine, if you want to reject the evidence of eyewitnesses of miracles then how about another suggestion: Let us see him make a prophecy, not a vague one that has a 50% chance of occuring, but a very specific one...and let us see it come to pass :)

So I suppose that when someone makes a prophecy it absolutly will come true no matter what if its really from god?

" You have been taught, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But I say: Love thine enemies, and pray for those who persecute you."

If you have felt during the duration of this thread that Lyric( I think thats who it was) and I have been hateful toward you, I sincerely apologize. But be the bigger person. Don't give in to Lyrics comments. I don't think I've been hateful at least.

I am hateful towards those who demonstrably hate me.
So I'm not perfect. Want a hammer and nails?

I'm sorry, but I do not see where denying me my rights, my joy, my happiness, my peace...by refusing to forgive, and just let me live my own life without interference...I don't see where that demonstrates anything but hatred towards me...and therefore, I give hatred right back.

Because I am not perfect. and I humbly admit that I am NOT strong enough to love those who persecute me.

Umm...logic would dictate that only one interpretation could be correct. If I regarded mine and hers as correct, then there would be a contradiction.

Yea but I asked for a reason why you felt the other versions of christianity were not correct and that only your interpretations of the bible are right.

Because we understand their TRUE motivation. Their true motivation isn't to "save" anyone, or bring them closer to Christ...their TRUE motivation is to puff out their chest and wear their self-superiority on their sleeve.



Yes, Lord knows we risk persecution, chagrin, personal attacks, hatred from others, and the denigration of our ego to boost our ego :rolleyes: I think Paul had something to say about those who lack the courage to preach in the face of persecution and.....oh wait, I forgot. You don't acknowledge Paul's authority but only Jesus' authority even though Jesus gave Paul the authority to speak for Him. So much for that :rolleyes:

Neo, ignore the flamebait and answer my posts

True, hatred is wrong but rebuking a sinner for the betterment of their soul is not only ok but commanded.

and what reaction do you EXPECT from the one you rebuke?

Do you expect them to thank you, and bless you for persecuting them and making thier lives miserable?

You are NOT to punish others. and by denying rights, you are de-facto punishing them.

Do you expect them to love you for punishing them?

If so, that is pretty warped.

This is one of the longest threads I've ever seen! Why is it always the threads about the gays than go on forever?

Because everyone feels like they have to get in the last word.

and I will make sure OUR SIDE gets the last word.

Yea but I asked for a reason why you felt the other versions of christianity were not correct and that only your interpretations of the bible are right.



Because, as I stated earlier, some parts are not open to multiple interpretations, no matter how much you try to butcher the text to change the meaning.

Because, as I stated earlier, some parts are not open to multiple interpretations, no matter how much you try to butcher the text to change the meaning.

So all other Christian denominations butcher the same text you use?

Because everyone feels like they have to get in the last word.

and I will make sure OUR SIDE gets the last word.


If so, then one of us is going to die of old age in her computer chair, because I'm certainly not giving up either.

Because people don't like being told what they are doing is sinful ;)

And you, of course...are simon-pure...and thus in a position to tell others they are sinful, right, Neo?

Remember the passage about worrying about the plank in your own eye, before worrying about the mote in your brother's eye?

I'm sure you're not guilty of any sin though, are you, Neo?

(MAJOR SARCASM OFF) <--------have to let some people know when I'm being sarcastic, because they are not able to see sarcasm when it hits 'em between the eyes....

So all other Christian denominations butcher the same text you use?


First of all, the word "other" doesn't apply since I am not of a denomination. Now that that's out of the way, many denominations are actually very similar, and some are practically the same. Most denominations were formed over differing interpretation of vague texts. That being said, we can rule out any denominations who openly reject the obvious teachings.

First of all, the word "other" doesn't apply since I am not of a denomination. Now that that's out of the way, many denominations are actually very similar, and some are practically the same. Most denominations were formed over differing interpretation of vague texts. That being said, we can rule out any denominations who openly reject the obvious teachings.
Answer my stuff above! At the least, it's new.

And you, of course...are simon-pure...and thus in a position to tell others they are sinful, right, Neo?


I'm sorry, but any reply would involve quoting the epistles to Timothy and Titus, and we all know what you think of anything Paul says.

Read back a few (or a trillion, it's hard to remember with this thread ballooning at such a rate) pages, and you will see I really have no problem with equal rights for homosexuals, just having the government say that their union is sanctified by God.

And what makes you believe the government has the AUTHORITY to claim ANY marriage or union is sanctified by God?

ANY union, whatsoever...opposite or same-sex union...what makes you believe the Government has the AUTHORITY to speak for God? thought you said God was the ultimate authority? Seems like your own conviction on that point might not be as strong as you claim, if you think the US Government can speak for God....

GOTCHA!!
BADDA-BING, BADDA-BOOM!!!

First of all, the word "other" doesn't apply since I am not of a denomination. Now that that's out of the way, many denominations are actually very similar, and some are practically the same. Most denominations were formed over differing interpretation of vague texts. That being said, we can rule out any denominations who openly reject the obvious teachings.

And pray tell after you answer Deleuze's questions what are the obvious teachings?

are there any countries out there that currently have a version of your ideal govt.?

Yeah. Probably Iran and the Taliban would suit her just fine.

Oh, forgot...the Taliban isn't in power anymore...oh, wait a minute...yes they are...everywhere but Kabul where the Mayor of Kabul, Karzai was installed by the US...but everywhere else in Afghanistan, the warlords and Taliban are coming back into power, because we turned our backs on them to go after Iraq's oil.

Fine, a theocracy but not one as strict as the ones in the Middle-Ages. Make it a bit flexible for different interpretations of scripture, but not too lax.

Why? Do you feel you need...and everyone else needs...Big Brother to FORCE them to "be good" Do you really think most people cannot decide good morals and ethics for themselves...that they must be coerced and threatened into it?

because we turned our backs on them to go after Iraq's oil.
This isn't the place, but the "Iraq is about oil" argument is one of the dumbest arguments in modern foreign policy discourse. It stems from the last gasps of dialectical materialism (Marxism) and continually taints the left.

I'm sorry, but any reply would involve quoting the epistles to Timothy and Titus, and we all know what you think of anything Paul says.

Pssst, Filled with the Holy Spirit =/= Infalliable

Being Jesus Christ = Infalliable

Also as you already admitted that religion was your only reason to oppose legal gay marriage and since you said that you would not try to stop purely secular unions between homosexuals you have, in fact, lost. The goverment doesn't claim God's will nor does it claim that marriages are blessed by God. As such -> legal homosexual unions! After they get them legaly without forcing you to watch or whatever they can then go to a pro-equality church and get "married" by whatever priest feels like marrying them. YOU can claim ey aren't really married because YOUR priest didn't do it, but they will still be married to the rest of us.

Also, Theocracy? Remember what happened last time? See: Spanish Inquisition and Crusades and Indulgences

The capitol would be an impregnable fortress, with walls 100 feet thick :p

But if your country was such a paradise and a Utopia...and your government so righteous and kind, and good...why would you NEED a fortress to hide behind?

Because your subjjects would rebel?? And rightly so??

Because damn well NO ONE likes to be TOLD what to do, what to think, or what to believe.

The capitol would be an impregnable fortress, with walls 100 feet thick :p

Hey...I hear some of Saddam's old palaces would fit your requirements...as would some of the Tora Bora caves in Afghanistan...

And what makes you believe the government has the AUTHORITY to claim ANY marriage or union is sanctified by God?

ANY union, whatsoever...opposite or same-sex union...what makes you believe the Government has the AUTHORITY to speak for God? thought you said God was the ultimate authority? Seems like your own conviction on that point might not be as strong as you claim, if you think the US Government can speak for God....

GOTCHA!!
BADDA-BING, BADDA-BOOM!!!you're right. so the government can define marrage in a legal sense to mean a union between man and woman.

and as for marriages being santified by God? I guess you're right there too. so reguardless of the fact that over 90% of all marriages take place in a religious place, God has nothing to do with it. Nevermind it takes place in a place of worship, religion has nothing to do with it. Even tho the person performing the ritural is reading from a Holy Text, as you say GOD has nothing to do with it.

You want religion out of your marrage, don't get married in a church. simple.

you're right. so the government can define marrage in a legal sense to mean a union between man and woman.

and as for marriages being santified by God? I guess you're right there too. so reguardless of the fact that over 90% of all marriages take place in a religious place, God has nothing to do with it. Nevermind it takes place in a place of worship, religion has nothing to do with it. Even tho the person performing the ritural is reading from a Holy Text, as you say GOD has nothing to do with it.

You want religion out of your marrage, don't get married in a church. simple.

Which would then be discriminatory because it was already admitted that there was no non-religous basis for no gay marriage.

Religous place =/= Christian God

a large number of weddings don't take place inside a church, speaking of which churches aren't holy places, they are buildings.

And what makes you believe the government has the AUTHORITY to claim ANY marriage or union is sanctified by God?

ANY union, whatsoever...opposite or same-sex union...what makes you believe the Government has the AUTHORITY to speak for God? thought you said God was the ultimate authority? Seems like your own conviction on that point might not be as strong as you claim, if you think the US Government can speak for God....

GOTCHA!!
BADDA-BING, BADDA-BOOM!!!


Apparently, the government feels it has the right to speak for God by giving marriage to homosexuals. The ideal government would follow God's will, regardless of what the majority or minority wanted.

Okay so we have determined that marriage is not confined to religions. We have determined that the government saying gays can marry does not have any impact on religions beliefs nor does it force religions to marry gays. So now that we know that the gay marriage issue does not involve religions do you have any reason to be against the United States of America allowing gays to marry?

Edit:Apparently, the government feels it has the right to speak for God by giving marriage to homosexuals. The ideal government would follow God's will, regardless of what the majority or minority wanted.

The government is not speaking for god whatsoever. It is dealing with an issue that is devoid of any religious involvement unless the couple in question wants it. And sorry but we arent in a theocracy here. So the rules that would apply to that do not apply to the issue at hand. You cant argue against gay marriage using one system of government when it pertains to a different form.

Yeah. Probably Iran and the Taliban would suit her just fine.

Oh, forgot...the Taliban isn't in power anymore...oh, wait a minute...yes they are...everywhere but Kabul where the Mayor of Kabul, Karzai was installed by the US...but everywhere else in Afghanistan, the warlords and Taliban are coming back into power, because we turned our backs on them to go after Iraq's oil.



How DARE you compare me to them! If I could give a cyberslap, you would be getting one right now! They twist the will of their God to serve their own purposes! At least I follow the will of mine!

As I stated earlier, I don't mind them having equal rights as long as the government does not equate their union to a marriage, which is sanctified by God. They can call it a "lifelong partnership" or something else, but marriage? I don't think so.

But you have no problem with a hetero couple getting MARRIED by a Justice of the Peace?

WTF???

Marriage in the US, by default, is religious. Personally, I liked the idea of making civil unions the standard and allowing churches to make certain civil unions a marriage. That way, at least the government isn't slapping God in the face.

Oh, I wouldn't worry about that. God's a big boy. Besides...wouldn't God simply turn the other cheek?

Why? Do you feel you need...and everyone else needs...Big Brother to FORCE them to "be good" Do you really think most people cannot decide good morals and ethics for themselves...that they must be coerced and threatened into it?


It beats having a government endorsement of evil. At least it would be easier to raise my kids to conform to a Christian lifestyle in an enviroment with less open sin.

Apparently, the government feels it has the right to speak for God by giving marriage to homosexuals. The ideal government would follow God's will, regardless of what the majority or minority wanted.
That's fine if it's my God and not yours.

But you have no problem with a hetero couple getting MARRIED by a Justice of the Peace?

WTF???

No, because it's actually marriage in that situation.

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mar-ij
Function: noun
1 : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law —see also DIVORCE
2 : the ceremony containing certain legal formalities by which a marriage relationship is created

It beats having a government endorsement of evil. At least it would be easier to raise my kids to conform to a Christian lifestyle in an enviroment with less open sin.
Ah, but isn't life supposed to be difficult? Life isn't easy for anyone, and never will be, so forget about that.

It beats having a government endorsement of evil.
The line was there before...you just crossed it. Homosexuality is evil? And the Crusaders weren't? Or if they are, considering their actions were based on interpretations of the Bible, how do you know you're not following in their footsteps?

At least it would be easier to raise my kids to conform to a Christian lifestyle in an enviroment with less open sin.
Do they get a chance to decide whether to be Christian on their own?

Pssst, Filled with the Holy Spirit =/= Infalliable


Quite the contrary, if one has the Holy Spirit in them, then it is not the individual but the Holy Spirit Himself acting.

1 : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law —see also DIVORCE
That's one definition. There are others, you know.

Yes, the Bible is fallible but Wikipedia is infallible :rolleyes:


This is the US, there is a reason why a priest is necessary to to legalize a marriage.

1. No, a priest is NOT necessaryh to legalize a marriage. A Rabbi can, and so can a Justice of the Peace.

2. In defense of Wikipedia...at least Wikipedia was not written by people who thought the world was flat.

No, because it's actually marriage in that situation.

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mar-ij
Function: noun
1 : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law —see also DIVORCE
2 : the ceremony containing certain legal formalities by which a marriage relationship is created
"WordNet (r) 2.0 (August 2003)"
marriage
n 1: the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for
life (or until divorce); "a long and happy marriage";
"God bless this union" [syn: matrimony, union,
spousal relationship, wedlock]
2: two people who are married to each other; "his second
marriage was happier than the first"; "a married couple
without love" [syn: married couple, man and wife]
3: the act of marrying; the nuptial ceremony; "their marriage
was conducted in the chapel" [syn: wedding, marriage
ceremony]
4: a close and intimate union; "the marriage of music and
dance"; "a marriage of ideas"

When you pick up a dictionary, make sure it's a good one.

Also, Theocracy? Remember what happened last time? See: Spanish Inquisition and Crusades and Indulgences


Yes, all government systems have their downsides, but at least if I were the head of a theocracy, that wouldn't happen.

I would trust the word of God a little more than the word of an online encyclopedia ;)

Again, the online encyclopedia was not compiled by people who thought the world was flat.

No, because it's actually marriage in that situation.

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mar-ij
Function: noun
1 : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law —see also DIVORCE
2 : the ceremony containing certain legal formalities by which a marriage relationship is created

Well if a definition says so then we must abide by it and never consider that it could be incorrect and in need of change. That's like saying that a cure shouldn't be created for a fatal disease because the disease is, by definition, fatal and is correct in being fatal.

Yes, all government systems have their downsides, but at least if I were the head of a theocracy, that wouldn't happen.

You are such a troll. Stop bullshiting now.

Yes, all government systems have their downsides, but at least if I were the head of a theocracy, that wouldn't happen.
I thought God ran your theocracy?

1. No, a priest is NOT necessaryh to legalize a marriage. A Rabbi can, and so can a Justice of the Peace.

2. In defense of Wikipedia...at least Wikipedia was not written by people who thought the world was flat.



The writers of the Bible never said the earth was flat. The four-corners reference was a metaphorical term.

That's one definition. There are others, you know.

It's only the definition on dictionary.com. And on webster's. So I'd assume it's the correct one. Gay Marriage would be contradictary, since a partnership between two homosexuals would not be marriage, as defined by the dictionary. It would be just that, a partnership.

First of all, I will state my mind if I want to - this is a thread I am allowed to post on.

Second of all, I don't need new material - you are still acting as if you are perfect. Your holier-than-thou attitude is not only incredibly un-Christ-like, but it belies what is most likely an underlying lack of faith. If you find that insulting, stop trying to claim that you are the end authority on the Bible and how to view it.



Exactly, Neo. If you want people to stop reacting to you as they are, then change your fucking attitude. Your attitude belies your words and your claims. your holier-than-thou attitude only serves to piss people off.

I thought God ran your theocracy?


Lol, I think you misinterpreted me. I did not mean God was actually sitting on the throne in the capitol, it would be a leader who was following God's will. In the ideal theocracy they would be anyway.

It's only the definition on dictionary.com. And on webster's. So I'd assume it's the correct one. Gay Marriage would be contradictary, since a partnership between two homosexuals would not be marriage, as defined by the dictionary. It would be just that, a partnership.
Someone already posted another one. And someone else neatly skewered this narrowminded way of viewing language.

Not only that, but people get to decide what marriage means. Just like other words (like "gay") change meaning over time, marriage will too.

Yes, on second thought I forgot about justices of the peace. Of course, this one error is far more grave than the many errors of biblical knowledge displayed in this thread :rolleyes:

Yeah...and how about the error of accusing me of saying things I didn't say?

Your sibling has as much in common with you, genetically, as your biological offspring would have. Your (biological) nieces and nephews will be as genetically related to you as your own grandchildren would be. If the goal, biologically, is to get your genetic material passed on, then you will gain as much by rearing and helping biological siblings as you would in producing your own young.
Not just passing your own genetic material on but also crossing genes through sexual reproduction with a member of the same species NOT directly related to you. That's why we are not naturally attracted to our family members. Therefore, as i'm sure i'll say many times when i'm finished dismantling the next few posts, you are wrong.

In animals, we see many cases in which this is upheld. In many species there have been numerous documented cases where the risks of forming a new family will outweigh the potential benefits (due to various environmental or predator concerns), and an individual will choose not to reproduce, and will instead remain in their parents' "nest" to help rear siblings.
And? Does that mean they are gay? Perhaps they remain in their parents' "nest" but do they stay forever? And again, are they gay? Also, i'd like some examples of this... i'm curious what these "risks" you speak of are.

Humans are animals. Our species is distinct from other animal species, just as other animal species are distinct from each other, but we are still animals.
So you're saying humans are unique only in the way a pig is unique to a bird. Perhaps you should understand a concept "humanity" before you try and say that sort of thing.

It's only the definition on dictionary.com. And on webster's. So I'd assume it's the correct one. Gay Marriage would be contradictary, since a partnership between two homosexuals would not be marriage, as defined by the dictionary. It would be just that, a partnership.
"WordNet (r) 2.0 (August 2003)"
marriage
n 1: the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for
life (or until divorce); "a long and happy marriage";
"God bless this union" [syn: matrimony, union,
spousal relationship, wedlock]
2: two people who are married to each other; "his second
marriage was happier than the first"; "a married couple
without love" [syn: married couple, man and wife]
3: the act of marrying; the nuptial ceremony; "their marriage
was conducted in the chapel" [syn: wedding, marriage
ceremony]
4: a close and intimate union; "the marriage of music and
dance"; "a marriage of ideas"

Seems to be a lot better than the previous one.
Besides, no dictionary has yet changed its definition, because gay marriage has yet to be made legal. Anyway, a dictionary is not a law book.

Let me just start off by saying:You don't know what you're talking about, please don't assume that you're right. Why am I not doing the exact same thing right now? Because I actually have a little bit of knowledge on this subject.
OooOh. You're trying to insult me. Clever clever. However saying you have knowledge on this subject, judging from your obvious misguided view, would be a little bit of a lie, hm?

[QUOT]The electoral system is set up such that the majority decides what is best for everyone, within the bounds of the Constitution. Even if every elected official in the nation thought that Christianity should be mandatory, EVERY SINGLE ONE, they couldn't write that into law. Why? Because of the Constitution. They'd have to get an amendment passed, and since the Constitution protects everyone, they're not likely to do that. It would be like killing the filibuster... since it protects whoever isn't in power, and power goes back and forth, nobody can do without it. [/QUOTE]
Yes...? I fail to see your point. Having no gay 'marriage' is not going against the constitution at all. So the rest of that paragraph, much like the entire post in general, is garbage.

It's not political power. It's civil rights. And yes, according to the Constitution, which legally speaking, is the foundation of what this country is, everyone has civil rights.
Not everyone deserves power. But everyone deserves rights. Can't you see that? This is not a country that was designed so that the majority could oppress the minority. It was made as a country to fix that previous problem.
Why yes, everybody does have civil rights. I must keep repeating myself and even i'm getting tired of saying it... Do you see gays being publically hung? You don't? It's almost as if ... they have some sort of "right to life"... in fact... my god... it appears they have all sorts of civil rights! Hold on! They have all of them!

Perhaps in your ideal world, but not here. You can complain whenever you want, about whatever you want. You could even complain about things that don't exist. You could rally in the streets, demanding that the US pressure the South Africans to release Nelson Mandela. It doesn't matter. It's your protected right. Read the bill of rights sometime. It's a bit quicker than the Constitution, and it would already be enough to prove almost everything you're saying wrong :D
And yet, if that were true, you 'people' might be winning the battle on capital hill. But alas, you are not. A TRUE pity, hm?

Actually, it's fairly accurate. If what you were saying about the US were true, there would still be Jim Crow (but not slavery necessarily, as the North stopped that by force).
If one more idiot compares black oppression to the homosexual "SITUATION" (notice I did not use the word oppression... this is because it would be incorrect in this context)... That's all I have to say about this. I've shot this "little point" down more than once.

How so? You're rather easily offended... perhaps you should start some sort of a colony of people like you so that you aren't offended.
Or better yet, if you want to offend me, maybe you should start a colony of people like you... far away, where you can offend me all you want.

Wow. First of all, nobody here thinks (or at least has posted) that churches should be required to marry gays. Read the thread. However, they want the State to allow churches who do accept gay marriage to be able to marry gays, and for the State to recognize those marriages as legal.
This is about the rights that go along with marriage, not some religious thing that you're going on and on about. The religious ceremony wouldn't be forced down the throats of any church, and those who do want a religious ceremony can easily find a church to give it to them.
I've seen one. One of my mentors, who happens to be a lesbian, got married to someone she has been in love with for a very long time. It was a beautiful service, and anyone who thinks that it's disgusting that they be allowed to visit each other in the hospital when one gets sick is a human being with a heart that is completely closed to compassion.
etc etc etc... Oh sorry. Were you trying to make a point again? Well I had better deal with that right away. If the state "marries" gays, than it is infringing on my religion. Marriage, "civil union", is a religious ceremony. Why don't we care as much as atheistic marriages? Because the bible teaches us to give those people our pity and compassion despite their belief. For gays, however... it is not such a way.

Actually... that's sounding more and more like you. You, however, don't have my pity. I don't pity people who are so full of hate.
Especially ones who think they know everything, when in fact the exact opposite is closer to the truth.
Haha. Again you resort to insults. You are more like the "bigot" and the "hater" than you would like to believe. I'm glad I don't have your pity. I don't appreciate having anybody's pity because that shows they have gone from a state where the possibility of accepting my view is possible to a state of complete impossibility. On that note, you have my pity.

good...why would you NEED a fortress to hide behind?

Because your subjjects would rebel?? And rightly so??

Because damn well NO ONE likes to be TOLD what to do, what to think, or what to believe.


Yes, apparently people like you agreed when they nailed Christ to a tree.

1. No, a priest is NOT necessaryh to legalize a marriage. A Rabbi can, and so can a Justice of the Peace.true, but a priest/Rabbi santicfies the wedding for God. A Justice of the Peace leagalizes it for the law. that is why for weddings done by teh Justice of the Peace, its "with the power vested in me by the City/State/County of (location) I pronounce this couple man and wife (or whatever they would say for Same sex marriages) while weddings performed by a religous figure is proclaimed through god.

2. In defense of Wikipedia...at least Wikipedia was not written by people who thought the world was flat.neither was it written by scholors, or historians, or even people who neccessarily graduated at the top 10% of the class. Wikipedia is a combined effort of various Internet users. using popular definitions.

Let me help clarify something for you: nature is not conscious, and "nature" will never act to "control population" in the way you describe. Ever. Natural selection simply does not work that way. If a trait is not desirable, if it reduces reproductive fitness, it will be selected OUT of the gene pool. If homosexuality actually reduced reproductive fitness (as you suggest) then it simply would not exist in natural species. That is not the case, and, instead, research has proven repeatedly that homosexual behavior exists where it exists because it enhances reproductive success.
It is a defect... a sad defect in nature and a tragic pestilence on humans. Also, again, where is this "research that has proven repeatedly homosexual behavior exists... blah blah blah" ? I would doubt the amount of confidence in it until I read this "research" myself.

Homosexuality is not a defect, according to nature. If you choose to believe it is a sin for humans to express homosexuality then that is a personal choice on your part, but you should make an effort to avoid misunderstanding or misrepresenting the scientific facts on the subject.
Yes. Yes it is a defect. And since you supplied no "scientific facts" on the subject in this paragraph, and instead just decided to say something "just 'cause"... that's really all I have to say in response.

What's being oppressed? Your "right" not to be offended? You "right" to hate gay people?
I've dealt with this already. At least care about your image enough not to make yourself look so... Oh I dont' need to say anymore.

What are your rights?
See smug remark above.

Luckily, no country is a pure democracy, and minority rights are protected. Besides, religious nuts and theocrats are not the majority, they're a lunatic fringe.
Religious nuts? Haha... I hardly consider myself a religious nut. I just see things... well... correctly. Even without the religious arguement of homosexuality being a sin, it still stands that it is a sorry mental disorder.

Your idea of the past is unrealistic. There were just as many social problems 100 years ago as there are today. Ever heard of Jack the Ripper? Abortion happened, just with knives and hooks rather than in surgeries. "lazy people were punished by society" - oh yeah, I can tell that you are ruled by a spirit of love for your fellow man!
Jack the Ripper. That's one for you. BTK killer. Theres one for me. Let's go back and forth naming famous serial killers and social problems from them and now... I can assure you i'll go on long after you're done.

Ok, I'll answer for you since I have read your posts:

Neo:
"Same sex marriage hurts me because I think only my personal church should have access to the use of English words. It doesn't matter that civil marriage is completely secular. It doesn't matter that some religions sanction same-sex marriage. It doesn't matter that we have a little thing called the Constitution. I am right and therefore only the people I say so should be able to use the English words that I appropriate for my church."

Damn, Dempublicents...you're getting pretty good at the Lyric "Translation" Game! I couldn't have provided a better translation for Neo's words up to this point!

Someone already posted another one. And someone else neatly skewered this narrowminded way of viewing language.

Not only that, but people get to decide what marriage means. Just like other words (like "gay") change meaning over time, marriage will too.

The point is that it's not marriage. I've got no problem with Gay civil unions with all the rights that are in a marriage.

Honestly, the government should get out of marriage, allow legal unions for those who don't want to be married religiously, and leave marriage to religion.

There are apparently two possibilities:
1. You fell asleep in History class during the section on Civics.
2. You didn't, and they actually were teaching this stuff.

I'm not sure which is a scarier concept.
Aww. Sarcasm instead of actually supplying factual information. I love all of your arguements. The pure... nature of them proves my point for me.

Ummm... how do you mean? How can the US exist because of a religion? Such, Christianity was important in its creation. However, the Founders realized that religious freedom was important.
Religious freedom? Indeed. I argued that point on MY SIDE earlier on. Perhaps you should do us all a favor and go... oh, make an EFFORT. Or maybe that's asking too much.

Civil law wouldn't exist without religion? Another unproven hypothesis. Most curious, in fact, considering that there were many civil codes in place before any kind of a religious code (not before religion itself, mind you... just before religion explained the rules by which you have to live your life).
Not only is this a flame, but it is a poorly constructed and unfocused flame. Oh, and by "obvious misguided kind" you must have meant "people who have heard of the Constitution".
Tee hee. Again you resort to some twisted form of sarcasm. And if religion was before ANY form of civil code, you cannot truly and without a doubt say that civil law is not based on religious code. The fact that religion had to exist before a civil code was written says my arguement quite nicely, thank you.

Umm, NO! The first amendment is in place for exactly that reason. To prevent a theocracy. The majority cannot constitutionally impose religion on the minority. There are no true Democracies. The US is a constitutional republic.
Why yes it is. However republics work off of elected representatives... and they in turn represent who voted for them, and generally that would be the majority. Although because of the system there are occasional exceptions, I think you and everybody else that has brought this ... meaningless arguement up overdramatize exactly what you are saying. We aren't a "true" democracy, but like any fair government, the majority one way or another has the bigger say. And we aren't imposing religion, we are imposing religous values which have helped our civilization ... hell, have helped our civilization exist in the first place, thanks to your arguement above.

Support and/or apology? If you are going to spout unsupported claims that are offensive, especially when they are this broad, kindly do it in your imagination and not where other people might have to actually read it.
Err... You almost sound like me there. Sarcastic to a certain degree and yet more insulting than perhaps you intended. You have my applause for that.

Oh, I get it... so you think that insane people should go to prison, instead of getting treatment, when it has been legally defined (by the government of this little pet theocracy of yours) that they don't know right from wrong, and can't possibly be responsible for their actions?
If somebody does something wrong, they should be held responsible. Simple as that. I bring this up because it goes along with that "decay of society" I was going on about earlier that is being sped up by, again, disgusting suggestions like gay 'marriage'.

Holy... no, not going to soil the name. I hope that you have to live off welfare some day, just so that you'll understand exactly what it is you said. Welfare barely covers food, and maybe some shelter if you're lucky. These people aren't lazy, for the most part. They're out of luck and out of a job. You would condemn them to starve to death, for being downsized? And to think, we've supposedly made "progress"...
Starve to death? Haha. We spend billions of dollars in taxes into a system that in no way CHECKS to see if 'users' are abusing it. The fact is, anybody can go out and get a job somewhere, and if for some twisted reason they cannot find one they should move to one of those countries that we are apparently giving all the jobs to. I'm condemning nobody to death, but the fact is this is the land of opportunity and yet we give handouts to all those that don't take advantage of it because of their own poor choices.

If by "accepted" you mean "ostracized by their friends, family, and communities", then yeah. Ironically, one of the things that is making teen pregnancy figures increase dramatically is "abstinence only" sex ed, which is sponsored by the Church. All too often, hormones > abstinence pledge, and since they've never heard of a condom, they don't use one.
Oh, and by the way, it's not "cool". It's "statutory rape", for which you can go to "prison" for a "long time".
Since they've never heard of a condom? Hahahaha... You can't honestly believe that. They CHOOSE not to use one. Free condoms are available left and right, sexual education is practically mandatory, and if all else fails TV sends out all of the messages it needs to.

Maybe you should read the Constitution. You know, the thing that defines what America is? You'll see God in there plenty of times, if I'm not mistaken. Many of the people who had a say back then were devout Christians, and wouldn't have it any other way. And yet, miraculously, they had the foresight to realize that in order to be successful and free, there had to be religious freedom.
Amen to that brother. Religious freedom is a beautiful thing. It's the sort of thing that gives me the right to go outside and not see my religion being... discraced by practices like gay 'marriage.'

I'm not even going to bother talking to the idiots attacking gay marriage.

To the person who found this,

Great job! This is hilarious! Love it! Gonna haul this around with me and I have it saved to my harddrive.

oh, yes, prosecuting serial killers would be infringing on their rights... we bleeding heart liberals would get all mad if you were to put a guy who killed small children in jail...
Wait, are you implying that gay people are responsible for that???
Ahh resorting to sarcasm again. Beautiful. I'm saying gay people are responsible for a part of that same overall 'decay of society' that all of those things are a result of. Take that how you will.

This entire arguement is stupid, no one is going to win. Althought I disagree with Neo on most points, I respect her for not giving in and standing up for what she believes. Please let this thread die, no one is going to convince the reast of the world that they are right.


this thread dies only if OUR SIDE gets the last word in.

it still stands that it is a sorry mental disorder.
And there are a grand total of zero credible psychologists who agree with you on this one. Link me one, I'm begging you.

The line was there before...you just crossed it. Homosexuality is evil? And the Crusaders weren't? Or if they are, considering their actions were based on interpretations of the Bible, how do you know you're not following in their footsteps?


Do they get a chance to decide whether to be Christian on their own?


Do they get a chance to decide whether to be Christian on their own?


Yes, it's up to them....one can only raise children so well after all.

Once again, you have completely missed the point.
The argument was not that Bush supporters are in the minority (which, recently, has been coming closer and closer to true... his support is dwindling). The argument was that in 2000, most of the voters chose Gore, and yet the electoral college chose Bush. This has happened before, but it is rare, and it is proof positive that this is not a Democracy. If it were a Democracy, Bush would have lost the 2000 election, and would have lost again in 2004 because he wouldn't have had the advantage of being the incumbent. Perhaps a Republican would have won... but not Bush.
Your statistic is completely irrelevant to this point.
And thus the original statistic was COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT, as I was trying to prove. Thank you.

Actually, the laws regarding separation of church and state have been around since the beginning of this nation. Show me some evidence that "life was better" (a wholly subjective claim) and that, somehow, this was because of religious domination of the government that didn't exist.
Good luck!
If you need me to prove to you that there were less 'socially demented' inhumane acts 100 or 200 years ago.... haha, let me put it this way. "Good luck" proving otherwise. Also, since when has denying gays the right to "marry" because of religious freedom principles qualified as "religious domination of the government"...? You do enjoy overdramatizing things.

How is that? Our very country is based on priciples that bar church and state from mingling. I think it's done fairly well, seeing as how it's the only superpower on Earth.
One hundred years ago, black people were lynched for looking at white women. This was tolerated by your nostalgic "religious society". Kindly cash this reality check.
Cashed. And dealt with. Many times. Again, and again, and again. READ.

You don't get it, do you? These basic principles our government works upon are BASED on religion. They are based on the 'code of conduct' standard that the earliest religions set up so long ago. Murder is bad, steailng is bad... You think all of that just 'appeared' out of nowhere? The concept of government CAME from religion. That is why I laugh every time I read a post like that, and read attempts to seperate church and state. Without the church, the state would not exist. Government, morale standards... LAW, all of it began with the original religion which stated everything in nature had a spirit. Animism, it was called. It gave people a conscience, a sense of "look out for your fellow man"... as religion became more complex, government went with it.

Government without any religious 'interference' (as you would call it) is not simply unlikely, it's downright impossible.

I am a member of a religion that accepts gay marriage. There are many. Just because your religion doesn't accept it, doesn't mean no religion does. They won't leech off of the practices of your religion. They were enjoy the warmth of mine. They have nothing to do with your religion. In this country, religion cannot be a valid excuse in a case like this.

So your answer is "shut up and go away"? Everyone has rights, and you suggest forcibly removing those rights. I tell you now, sir or madame, that you cannot be a true American and stand for stripping rights from people.

And atheists get married too, by the way. So clearly, God is not a necessity.
That would be SIR for future reference, and I do appreciate the fact that you recognize where respect should be used.

As for the post... I've dealt with this mocki-... er... responding to another one of your posts. It involves the fact that it is infringing on my own religious freedoms by making me live under a system that goes directly against my religion in giving blatant sinners the right to undergo a religious ceremony... and ALL of it's benefits.