Non-Christians Should Not be Allowed to Marry

[J.T]

In order to sustain and preserve our People, our culture, and our national identity, only Orthodox Christians should be allowed to marry.

-All legal marriages performed be carried out by religious authorities of an approved Christian denomination

-Marriages can only be between persons of an approved Christian denomination

-Civil Marriages, Civil Unions, and all other 'unions' other than recognized religious marriages must be abolished

:salute:

. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_marriage#Marriage_in_Israel)

[Gaffer]

So your just a troll. Got it.

[Missileman]

In order to sustain and preserve our People, our culture, and our national identity, only Orthodox Christians should be allowed to marry.

-All legal marriages performed be carried out by religious authorities of an approved Christian denomination

-Marriages can only be between persons of an approved Christian denomination

-Civil Marriages, Civil Unions, and all other 'unions' other than recognized religious marriages must be abolished

:salute:

. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_marriage#Marriage_in_Israel)

LOL...good luck with that!

[fj1200]

In order to sustain and preserve our People...


. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_marriage#Marriage_in_Israel)

Why not just label the thread, "How Much I Hate the Jews and Israel"?

[PostmodernProphet]

In order to sustain and preserve our People, our culture, and our national identity, only Orthodox Christians should be allowed to marry.

-All legal marriages performed be carried out by religious authorities of an approved Christian denomination

-Marriages can only be between persons of an approved Christian denomination

-Civil Marriages, Civil Unions, and all other 'unions' other than recognized religious marriages must be abolished


lol.....you realize, of course, that any possible interpretation of scripture will show you that Jews were getting married in compliance with God's law long before Christ was incarnated.......

[revelarts]

Goes back all the way to Adam and Eve.

Even idolaters got married.

God spoke to a pagan king not to marry Sarah. he complained to God that he didn't know. God knew that and accepted it as long as he didn't marry her.

How about just get the Gov't out of the marriage biz altogether.
Like it was before some states tried to control blacks and whites marriages . That's where all this gov't license stuff came from.


If unbelievers want the someone to marry them let them go hire a private lawyer to draw up a contract. Religious people can go to religious leaders. Christian, Jew, Hindu, Wiccan or otherwise.


But the basic legal standard should be marriage between 1 man and 1 woman 18 and up. For any legal standing for claimed marriage benefits governmental or private.

If anyone else wants inheritance rights, hospitalization visits authority, whatever, let them draw up a will or contract to that effect.

But J.T. I'm like Gaffer here your post are getting more outrageous. can't take you seriously with this kinda stuff.

[KSigMason]

Yeah, good luck with that JT. This country is not a theocracy nor do we have a nationally established religion, nor should we. This country was founded and established on religious tolerance and should stay that way.

[CSM]

LOL! I am all for tyranny as long as it's the right kind of tyranny! You simply cannot make this crap up.

[Gunny]

In order to sustain and preserve our People, our culture, and our national identity, only Orthodox Christians should be allowed to marry.

-All legal marriages performed be carried out by religious authorities of an approved Christian denomination

-Marriages can only be between persons of an approved Christian denomination

-Civil Marriages, Civil Unions, and all other 'unions' other than recognized religious marriages must be abolished

:salute:

. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_marriage#Marriage_in_Israel)

Get a clue, J.

Marriage is in the eyes of the Lord. That legal paper you get from the state doesn't mean jack. It's nothing more than the state using the church for double duty because it's convenient.

If you knuckleheads want separation of church and state, practice what you preach. Get your queer ideology out of my church.

I could care less what the state thinks of my religious views and or what my marital status is. Fact is, the state offers nothing but civil union for the purpose of taxation and accountability. Marriage has NOTHING to do with the state. You and they can take that punky little legal document, rollit up tight and .... well, you get the idea.

[J.T]

How about just get the Gov't out of the marriage biz altogether.




But the basic legal standard should be marriage between 1 man and 1 woman 18 and up. For any legal standing for claimed marriage benefits governmental or private.


So you want the State out of it... but you want the State to define what the State recognizes as marriage? :laugh:

Please make up your mind.

That makes less sense than saying Jews shouldn't intermarry because gawd sez so and then calling White people racist if they, too, call for the preservation of 'traditional understandings of marriage and family'. :slap:



Marriage is in the eyes of the Lord.

Who? Your god? The same god who says rape is a valid form of marriage? (Deut, again)

[gabosaurus]

So J.T. is a Nazi sympathizer? Interesting...

[NightTrain]

So J.T. is a Nazi sympathizer? Interesting...

Take note, Gabby.

He's trolling 42.8% more efficiently than you do.

And, unless I miss my guess, he's just getting warmed up.

[LuvRPgrl]

In order to sustain and preserve our People, our culture, and our national identity, only Orthodox Christians should be allowed to marry.

-All legal marriages performed be carried out by religious authorities of an approved Christian denomination

-Marriages can only be between persons of an approved Christian denomination

-Civil Marriages, Civil Unions, and all other 'unions' other than recognized religious marriages must be abolished

:salute:

. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_marriage#Marriage_in_Israel)

You would probably have support from one poster, HogTrash, but he would insist on one caveat.

[revelarts]

So you want the State out of it... but you want the State to define what the State recognizes as marriage? :laugh:

Please make up your mind.


You didn't get it.

People can marry whatever they want.
As long as they are over 18 (if 16, parental permission)

BUT IF ANYONE WANTS BENEFITS FROM THE GOVERNMENT they have to fit the gov't criteria.
You've heard of that before.

There are ZERO penalties for marrying a shoe. but just don't expect a marriage discount on your income tax return. ( My next move as president of America will be to eliminate the income tax. so don't whine about that over long either). But there got be a standard for benefits.

And the one that been working for what... Oh... the past 1000 years or so in the west seems reasonable to me.
More or less standard issue well ...um... everywhere since anyone can remember. makes sense.

[J.T]

The heaviest sin is bestiality (sex or marriage outside your People)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wr2UFn1UcfE

[PostmodernProphet]

The heaviest sin is bestiality (sex or marriage outside your People)


actually, misquoting scriptures for political purposes might rank as heavier.....

[Gunny]

So you want the State out of it... but you want the State to define what the State recognizes as marriage? :laugh:

Please make up your mind.

That makes less sense than saying Jews shouldn't intermarry because gawd sez so and then calling White people racist if they, too, call for the preservation of 'traditional understandings of marriage and family'. :slap:



Who? Your god? The same god who says rape is a valid form of marriage? (Deut, again)

Want to try again? I never asked the state to define jack. That of course would make that portion of your response non-applicable and nonsensible.

Got any more red herrings? I wasn't aware my God said rape was anything more than a crime. It just takes a genius like you to twist the words around so they say what you want them to.

So tell me .... since those of us who are smart enough to know Man didn't invent the show have our own little book, what handbook is it you use for YOUR religion of intolerance and hate?

[LuvRPgrl]

what handbook is it you use for YOUR religion of intolerance and hate?

"The World According To Me" :)

[J.T]

Want to try again? I never asked the state to define jack.
You wanna put down the booze?


I never said you did. Why can't you be honest?


Maybe it'd be easier to follow the discussion if you could remain sober?


Got any more red herrings? I wasn't aware my God said rape was anything more than a crime.
Punishable by fine. Being raped is punishable by a lifetime of rape.

Let me Google that for you (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=deuteronomy+girl+marry+rapist)

[gabosaurus]

My sister is totally non-religious and apolitical. You are saying she can't get married?
My sister wasn't married in a church. No religious official presided over the marriage.

I think JT should be issuing fatwas instead of posting. Because it is obvious that he was a religious dictatorship. Sort of like Iran.

[Kathianne]

My sister is totally non-religious and apolitical. You are saying she can't get married?
My sister wasn't married in a church. No religious official presided over the marriage.

I think JT should be issuing fatwas instead of posting. Because it is obvious that he was a religious dictatorship. Sort of like Iran.

Isn't it just shocking the responses here, at least at my last read he stands alone with his stupidity. C'mon Gabby, you assumed that some would have agreed at least in some aspects with his inanity, right?

[Mr. P]

Who let this Bozo JT in here. Damn! :laugh:

[J.T]

Good to see you all the condemn the Jews and Israel's theocratic and tyrannical nature. :thumb:

You did click the link at the end of the OP, right?

[Missileman]

Who let this Bozo JT in here. Damn! :laugh:

June is "Let a clown have a keyboard" month.

[J.T]

June is "Let a clown have a keyboard" month.
Who joined in June?

[Mr. P]

June is "Let a clown have a keyboard" month.

I guess it must be that. Da kids are outta school, right? :laugh:

[fj1200]

Because it is obvious that he was a religious dictatorship.

You don't seem to be paying attention to his pattern.

[Gunny]

You wanna put down the booze?


I never said you did. Why can't you be honest?


Maybe it'd be easier to follow the discussion if you could remain sober?

Punishable by fine. Being raped is punishable by a lifetime of rape.

Let me Google that for you (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=deuteronomy+girl+marry+rapist)

I'd put it down if I had any, thanks.

I'm completely honest. You just don't like the message because it opposes yours. For the millionth time, I think I'm as right as you think you are.

[LuLu]

In order to sustain and preserve our People, our culture, and our national identity, only Orthodox Christians should be allowed to marry.

-All legal marriages performed be carried out by religious authorities of an approved Christian denomination

-Marriages can only be between persons of an approved Christian denomination

-Civil Marriages, Civil Unions, and all other 'unions' other than recognized religious marriages must be abolished

:salute:

. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_marriage#Marriage_in_Israel)

I agree in a way! I am not a christian, if I get married it should be recognized by the state/fed as a civil union, and they should recognized every marriage/civil union in the same way. If you enter into a contract of a civil union/marriage with anyone it should be recognized by the state, everyone has the right to contract. Marriage should be between two christians. If a christian church wants to marry a gay couple it should be recognized as a marriage, but it should be recognized as a contract or civil union in regards to the government.

That is the biggest problem I have with the whole debate. A gay couple who is christian cannot get married, but I can get married even though I don't consider myself a christian.

[logroller]

Why not just label the thread, "How Much I Hate the Jews and Israel"?

or simply-- "I'm a bigot"

[logroller]

The heaviest sin is bestiality (sex or marriage outside your People)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wr2UFn1UcfE


actually, misquoting scriptures for political purposes might rank as heavier.....

It's ironic America is comprised primarily by ranks of emigrated people who sought freedom from the oppression of their homeland, and yet our history is riddled with cultural bigotry and oppression. But its a small price to pay for our freedom.

[LuvRPgrl]

A gay couple who is christian cannot get married, QUOTE]

"gay couple that is Christian",,,,now thats LOL funny !!

[QUOTE=logroller;476041]It's ironic America is comprised primarily by ranks of emigrated people who sought freedom from the oppression of their homeland, and yet our history is riddled with cultural bigotry and oppression. But its a small price to pay for our freedom.

You haven't experienced real cultural bigotry and oppression until you have been to many a foreign country. Arabs killing arabs, Russians hating ukranians,,,,where is that place in eastern Europe, Boznia?
And Japan is as racist as they come,,,,Philippines, they treat their own worse than animals....

[fj1200]

"gay couple that is Christian",,,,now thats LOL funny !!

I know some and more are out there:
www.gaychristian101.com

What's the problem?

[LuvRPgrl]

I know some and more are out there:
www.gaychristian101.com

What's the problem?



A person is not a Christian merely because they claim to be.
Otherwise, according to the Bible, anyone could merely sin all they want, then upon arrival at the pearly gates, simply declare they are Christian and they get into heaven.

But, it don't work that way.

[fj1200]

A person is not a Christian merely because they claim to be.

A person is not NOT a Christian merely because you proclaim them to be.

[LuvRPgrl]

A person is not NOT a Christian merely because you proclaim them to be.

TRUE, Read the New Testament...

[Gunny]

TRUE, Read the New Testament...

What would be the point? The Christian/religion haters don't care what anyone else has to offer. They just create thread after thread spewing their own religion of hatred against anyone who believes something they refuse to.

Most interesting to me is they have no more to support THEIR religion than Christians/other religions do.

The entire premise of the argument is made up of nothing but red herrings.

[LuvRPgrl]

What would be the point? The Christian/religion haters don't care what anyone else has to offer. They just create thread after thread spewing their own religion of hatred against anyone who believes something they refuse to.

Most interesting to me is they have no more to support THEIR religion than Christians/other religions do.

The entire premise of the argument is made up of nothing but red herrings.

Oh, I'm a firm believer in "do the right thing" and let the chips fall where they may.
It's my responsability to put that information at their disposal, its their responsability as to what they do with it.

But ;you never know anyways, I was once an atheist, then when I came to an understanding of the TRUE GOD, I still insisted that God used evolution to create everything, but then my eyes were opened even wider.

Which is kinda funny, because my realization that evolution is not true/impossible, didn't originate from my religous beliefs, yet the atheists with their typical knee jerk reaction (if a Christian doesn't believe in evolution IT MUST be because of their religous beliefs and not based in any science or logic) always accuse me of that.

[fj1200]

I still insisted that God used evolution to create everything, but then my eyes were opened even wider.

What do you mean by that?

[Missileman]

Oh, I'm a firm believer in "do the right thing" and let the chips fall where they may.
It's my responsability to put that information at their disposal, its their responsability as to what they do with it.

But ;you never know anyways, I was once an atheist, then when I came to an understanding of the TRUE GOD, I still insisted that God used evolution to create everything, but then my eyes were opened even wider.

Which is kinda funny, because my realization that evolution is not true/impossible, didn't originate from my religous beliefs, yet the atheists with their typical knee jerk reaction (if a Christian doesn't believe in evolution IT MUST be because of their religous beliefs and not based in any science or logic) always accuse me of that.

So give it a go Einstein...disprove evolution from a scientific standpoint and earn yourself a Nobel prize.

[LuvRPgrl]

What do you mean by that?

Its basically a personal experience, so those who know me well, they know its true, but for all others, not really sure how they would receive it.


So give it a go Einstein...disprove evolution from a scientific standpoint and earn yourself a Nobel prize.

Already did.

[Gaffer]

Already did.

Could you direct me to the post, I must have missed it.

[LuvRPgrl]

Could you direct me to the post, I must have missed it.

Yea, as soon as you answer my question. Your's has been asked and answered. : )))

[Gaffer]

Yea, as soon as you answer my question. Your's has been asked and answered. : )))

I had made one post in this thread prior to the one you quoted. It's post #2 if you want to look it up. I did not ask a question in that post. Are you confusing me with someone else? You did not ask me any question either.

I actually do want to see scientific proof that evolution does not exist. Or for that matter proof that creationism exists. If I missed something direct me to a post number please.

[Missileman]

I had made one post in this thread prior to the one you quoted. It's post #2 if you want to look it up. I did not ask a question in that post. Are you confusing me with someone else? You did not ask me any question either.

I actually do want to see scientific proof that evolution does not exist. Or for that matter proof that creationism exists. If I missed something direct me to a post number please.

You didn't miss it...the fucktard is trying to play "I know you are, but what am I?" but he's too fucking stupid to get the "you" and "I" straight.

[Gunny]

I had made one post in this thread prior to the one you quoted. It's post #2 if you want to look it up. I did not ask a question in that post. Are you confusing me with someone else? You did not ask me any question either.

I actually do want to see scientific proof that evolution does not exist. Or for that matter proof that creationism exists. If I missed something direct me to a post number please.

First, there is no onus to prove something does not exist when there is no evidence to prove that it does.

Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a theory.

Evolution is life constantly changing to adapt its constantly changing environment. Anything NOT evolving is dead.

Darwinism can be proven about as much as creationism can. Because the former is a belief in a scientific theory, for some reason it doesn't get relegated to the "religion" scrapheap for non-believers.

Further, non-believers CONTINUE to attempt to sell scientific theory as scientific fact and such is not the case. Scientific fact is man explaining with actual facts, his universe within the limits of man's intellect.

Scientific theory, and arguing against creationism with it, is nothing more than just another religion.

[J.T]

Already did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates

Where are you?


First, there is no onus to prove something does not exist when there is no evidence to prove that it does.

Keep that in mind next time you decide to go on one of your 'u kant proov mah gawd don't eksist' rants.


Anything NOT evolving is dead.

:slap:

You seem confused. Par for the course, I suppose.


Darwinism can be proven about as much as creationism can.

Darwinism has what to do with the subject at hand?


Because the former is a belief in a scientific theory, for some reason it doesn't get relegated to the "religion" scrapheap for non-believers.
:laugh:


Scientific theory, and arguing against creationism with it, is nothing more than just another religion.
:lol:

[logroller]

You haven't experienced real cultural bigotry and oppression until you have been to many a foreign country. Arabs killing arabs, Russians hating ukranians,,,,where is that place in eastern Europe, Boznia?
And Japan is as racist as they come,,,,Philippines, they treat their own worse than animals....

...Africa. the list of shitholes is a long one. DOn't misunderstand me-- I love our country, wouldn't want to live anywhere else in the world. However, I'll thank govt to stay out of my personal affairs--including marriage.

[fj1200]

Its basically a personal experience, so those who know me well, they know its true, but for all others, not really sure how they would receive it.

I was with you on the first part of the sentence I quoted, the "but then" part threw me off.

[LuvRPgrl]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates

Where are you?

First on the list, top dog, king of all....

www.the world according to me .com

:lol:


Y R U jumping on Gunny? He is arguing on your side. The reason the topic of evolution came up is because MM is attempting to hijack this thread.


you didn't miss it...the fucktard is trying to play "i know you are, but what am i?" but he's too fucking stupid to get the "you" and "i" straight.

i r u


First, there is no onus to prove something does not exist when there is no evidence to prove that it does..BINGO, Gaff and I kinda have an understanding now....



Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a theory..
Yep, NEVER PROVEN. but there is alot of money and prestige involved. Money has corrupted modern science, just when we thought science was finally going to be able to pursue the truthful iinformation about things, without religion (previously influenced science)
or money (current) influencing the outcomes.


Evolution is life constantly changing to adapt its constantly changing environment. Anything NOT evolving is dead.

Darwinism can be proven about as much as creationism can. Because the former is a belief in a scientific theory, for some reason it doesn't get relegated to the "religion" scrapheap for non-believers.

Further, non-believers CONTINUE to attempt to sell scientific theory as scientific fact and such is not the case. Scientific fact is man explaining with actual facts, his universe within the limits of man's intellect.

Scientific theory, and arguing against creationism with it, is nothing more than just another religion.

EXACTLY


I was with you on the first part of the sentence I quoted, the "but then" part threw me off.


Well, it was a personal experience, myoptic people like MM won't accept scientific evidence that contradicts their view on things, much less a personal experience. Sharing that experience is only useful to people who truly seek the truth.

People who know me know my credibility. IF one cares to know the real judgement on my credibility, I suppose trying to find a post where I lied about something would help, maybe, cuz one couldn't be found. I know MM will think he has one, but he is stalking me and grabbing at straws, I have left him in the dust. His breathing is difficult, he is stammering and stuttering, one of his legs has gone numb, finished, kaput.

He is now stalking me, looking for one mistake. He jumped on something I said in this thread and is attempting to hijack it, cuz he has no other play, he is desperate.

[Missileman]

MM is attempting to hijack this thread.

That's pretty funny since you're the one who brought up evolution.


Well, it was a personal experience, myoptic people like MM won't accept scientific evidence that contradicts their view on things, much less a personal experience. Sharing that experience is only useful to people who truly seek the truth.

People who know me know my credibility. IF one cares to know the real judgement on my credibility, I suppose trying to find a post where I lied about something would help, maybe, cuz one couldn't be found. I know MM will think he has one, but he is stalking me and grabbing at straws, I have left him in the dust. His breathing is difficult, he is stammering and stuttering, one of his legs has gone numb, finished, kaput.

He is now stalking me, looking for one mistake. He jumped on something I said in this thread and is attempting to hijack it, cuz he has no other play, he is desperate.

You're trying to squirm out of answering Gaffer's question...everyone can see it.

[LuvRPgrl]

So give it a go Einstein...disprove evolution from a scientific standpoint and earn yourself a Nobel prize. '

My field is math. They dont give a nobel prize for that field.


You're trying to squirm out of answering Gaffer's question...everyone can see it.

I already answered my cop buddy's question, u can ask him.

[Missileman]

'

My field is math. They dont give a nobel prize for that field.

I don't care what your specialty is, if a person were to scientifically disprove evolution, they'd win the prize.

You said:

Which is kinda funny, because my realization that evolution is not true/impossible, didn't originate from my religous beliefs, yet the atheists with their typical knee jerk reaction (if a Christian doesn't believe in evolution IT MUST be because of their religous beliefs and not based in any science or logic) always accuse me of that.

I'm curious what this "scientific or logical" epiphany is that you feel disproves evolution.

[LuvRPgrl]

I don't care what your specialty is, if a person were to scientifically disprove evolution, they'd win the prize.

You said:


I'm curious what this "scientific or logical" epiphany is that you feel disproves evolution.

It was a joke, you need to lighten up once in a while.

Disprove evolution, like I said, even if I could, there are many who wouldnt accept it no matter what, just like the 9/11 conspiracy freaks, the people who claim we didnt land on the moon.....

There actually are more than one proofs why evolution is impossible.

[Missileman]

There actually are more than one proofs why evolution is impossible.

They exist nowhere but in your imagination.

[Kathianne]

It was a joke, you need to lighten up once in a while.

Disprove evolution, like I said, even if I could, there are many who wouldnt accept it no matter what, just like the 9/11 conspiracy freaks, the people who claim we didnt land on the moon.....

There actually are more than one proofs why evolution is impossible.

I'll say from the outset that I'm prejudiced in favor of evolution. I first studied it in 5th grade, in a parochial school, back in '65. It made sense then and in high school, then college. It made sense while teaching science back in 2000. On the other hand, I'm open to the idea of ID, in fact my belief in evolution up to this point has never diminished my belief in a Creator. Seems to me that the problem comes with the time tables and the literalists, just cannot overcome the evidence that the earth and species are much older than the Bible states. Now again, that would be OT and historically that has been addressed for most people. So I ask:

What proofs? Most credible? I'm looking for anything that debunks evolution in a scientific method figuration. I've seen those pushing id come up with some 'reasons' but nothing that overturns the weight of evidence on the side of evolution. Are there 'gaps' in evolution timeline? Certainly, but how long and how does one say, 'We've yet to discover so many things?'

But fair enough, show me where ID comes close to scientifically defined theory. Considering it's relatively new in the scientific arena, not asking for the massive amounts of data and physical evidence that backs evolution, just reasonable testing and results, published by any scientific authoritative sites that are not Christian fundamentalist.

Just came across this in Yahoo! News. It's the type of thing I'm addressing, that there are a myriad of reasons to explain evolution and test. Now about ID?

http://news.yahoo.com/hot-magma-gave-rise-modern-mammals-study-suggests-144401473.html


Hot Magma Gave Rise to Modern Mammals, Study Suggests
LiveScience.comBy Charles Q. Choi Sat, Jul 2, 2011

The rise of modern mammals, which came with a dramatic warming of the Earth, may be traced to hot magma, new research suggests.

The Eocene epoch, which saw the emergence of the first ancestors of modern mammals such as hoofed animals, began almost 56 million years ago with global temperatures rising 9 degrees Fahrenheit (5 degrees Celsius) on average over a few thousand years.

The oldest known members of these species were relatively small, weighing less than 22 pounds (10 kilograms) — hinting the heat favored smaller creatures. Larger animals, with their greater body mass, would not be able to handle the excess heat so well. [Gallery: The World's Biggest Beasts]

Earth's wobbles

But what caused this ancient warming event, known as the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum?

Some scientists have linked the thermal maximum to a peak of an approximately 400,000-year cycle of variations in Earth's orbit that would have maximized the solar energy the planet received.

"This could have resulted in the warming of deep ocean waters, which would have destabilized large quantities of frozen methane known as methane hydrates stored on the marine continental shelves and slopes," researcher Adam Charles, a paleooceanographer at the University of Southampton in England. "Once released, the methane would diffuse through the seawater and subsequently be transformed to carbon dioxide when reaching the atmosphere."...

[LuvRPgrl]

Just came across this in Yahoo! News. It's the type of thing I'm addressing, that there are a myriad of reasons to explain evolution and test. Now about ID?

http://news.yahoo.com/hot-magma-gave-rise-modern-mammals-study-suggests-144401473.html

You consider that evidence??

[Kathianne]

You consider that evidence??

I consider it an example of the backing of evolution. Of course you wouldn't understand that.

[LuvRPgrl]

I consider it an example of the backing of evolution. Of course you wouldn't understand that.

I'm sorry, but "may be traced", "hinting the heat favored ...", "This could have ...". "Study Suggests...", "Some scientists have linked ...",

those terms don't exactly shout "evidence" but rather "speculation" which is the foundation of evolution.

Read the last sentence. This is typical thought process by many.

It COULD have,,,,,which WOULD have led to....

Lots of people assume the second half is fact, forgetting that for it to be fact, you have to prove the "could have" part, which they never do.

There is absolutely nothing but speculation in there.

The following, as far as I know, is as good as it gets for evolutionary THEORY.

In any theory of abiogenesis, two aspects of life have to be accounted for: replication and metabolism. The question of which came first gave rise to different types of theories. In the beginning, metabolism-first theories (Oparin coacervate) were proposed, and only later thinking gave rise to the modern, replication-first approach.

In modern, still somewhat limited understanding, the first living things on Earth are thought to be single cell prokaryotes (which lack a cell nucleus), perhaps evolved from protobionts (organic molecules surrounded by a membrane-like structure).[2] The oldest ancient fossil microbe-like objects are dated to be 3.5 Ga (billion years old), approximately one billion years after the formation of the Earth itself.[3][4] By 2.4 Ga, the ratio of stable isotopes of carbon, iron and sulfur shows the action of living things on inorganic minerals and sediments[5][6] and molecular biomarkers indicate photosynthesis, demonstrating that life on Earth was widespread by this time.[7][8]

The sequence of chemical events that led to the first nucleic acids is not known. Several hypotheses about early life have been proposed, most notably the iron-sulfur world theory (metabolism without genetics) and the RNA world hypothesis (RNA life-forms).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

NOTE there is no proof or solid evidence life arose from inorganic, it is only proposed.

This is also good reading. This guy believes in evolution as fact, yet states that the idea of living organisms arising from non living matter is "science fiction".The Short Proof of Evolution
by
Ian Johnston
Malaspina University-College
Nanaimo, BC
[now Vancouver Island University]

[This document is in the public domain and may be used, in whole or in part, without charge and without permission, by anyone, provided the source is acknowledged. Last revised in March 2005]



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We live, we are constantly told, in a scientific age. We look to science to help us achieve the good life, to solve our problems (especially our medical aches and pains), and to tell us about the world. A great deal of our education system, particularly the post-secondary curriculum, is organized as science or social science. And yet, curiously enough, there is one major scientific truth which vast numbers of people refuse to accept (by some news accounts a majority of people in North America)--the fact of evolution. Yet it is as plain as plain can be that the scientific truth of evolution is so overwhelmingly established, that it is virtually impossible to refute within the bounds of reason. No major scientific truth, in fact, is easier to present, explain, and defend.

Before demonstrating this claim, let me make it clear what I mean by evolution, since there often is some confusion about the term. By evolution I mean, very simply, the development of animal and plant species out of other species not at all like them, for example, the process by which, say, a species of fish gets transformed (or evolves) through various stages into a cow, a kangaroo, or an eagle. This definition, it should be noted, makes no claims about how the process might occur, and thus it certainly does not equate the concept of evolution with Darwinian Natural Selection, as so many people seem to do. It simply defines the term by its effects (not by how those effects are produced, which could well be the subject of another argument).

The first step in demonstrating the truth of evolution is to make the claim that all living creatures must have a living parent. This point has been overwhelmingly established in the past century and a half, ever since the French scientist Louis Pasteur demonstrated how fermentation took place and thus laid to rest centuries of stories about beetles arising spontaneously out of dung or gut worms being miraculously produced from non-living material. There is absolutely no evidence for this ancient belief. Living creatures must come from other living creatures. It does no damage to this point to claim that life must have had some origin way back in time, perhaps in a chemical reaction of inorganic materials (in some primordial soup) or in some invasion from outer space. That may well be true. But what is clear is that any such origin for living things or living material must result in a very simple organism. There is no evidence whatsoever (except in science fiction like Frankenstein) that inorganic chemical processes can produce complex, multi-cellular living creatures (the recent experiments cloning sheep, of course, are based on living tissue from other sheep).

[Missileman]

This is also good reading. This guy believes in evolution as fact, yet states that the idea of living organisms arising from non living matter is "science fiction".The Short Proof of Evolution
by
Ian Johnston
Malaspina University-College
Nanaimo, BC
[now Vancouver Island University]

[This document is in the public domain and may be used, in whole or in part, without charge and without permission, by anyone, provided the source is acknowledged. Last revised in March 2005]



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We live, we are constantly told, in a scientific age. We look to science to help us achieve the good life, to solve our problems (especially our medical aches and pains), and to tell us about the world. A great deal of our education system, particularly the post-secondary curriculum, is organized as science or social science. And yet, curiously enough, there is one major scientific truth which vast numbers of people refuse to accept (by some news accounts a majority of people in North America)--the fact of evolution. Yet it is as plain as plain can be that the scientific truth of evolution is so overwhelmingly established, that it is virtually impossible to refute within the bounds of reason. No major scientific truth, in fact, is easier to present, explain, and defend.

Before demonstrating this claim, let me make it clear what I mean by evolution, since there often is some confusion about the term. By evolution I mean, very simply, the development of animal and plant species out of other species not at all like them, for example, the process by which, say, a species of fish gets transformed (or evolves) through various stages into a cow, a kangaroo, or an eagle. This definition, it should be noted, makes no claims about how the process might occur, and thus it certainly does not equate the concept of evolution with Darwinian Natural Selection, as so many people seem to do. It simply defines the term by its effects (not by how those effects are produced, which could well be the subject of another argument).

The first step in demonstrating the truth of evolution is to make the claim that all living creatures must have a living parent. This point has been overwhelmingly established in the past century and a half, ever since the French scientist Louis Pasteur demonstrated how fermentation took place and thus laid to rest centuries of stories about beetles arising spontaneously out of dung or gut worms being miraculously produced from non-living material. There is absolutely no evidence for this ancient belief. Living creatures must come from other living creatures. It does no damage to this point to claim that life must have had some origin way back in time, perhaps in a chemical reaction of inorganic materials (in some primordial soup) or in some invasion from outer space. That may well be true. But what is clear is that any such origin for living things or living material must result in a very simple organism. There is no evidence whatsoever (except in science fiction like Frankenstein) that inorganic chemical processes can produce complex, multi-cellular living creatures (the recent experiments cloning sheep, of course, are based on living tissue from other sheep).

You should read it with a tad more scrutiny. What he said was that inorganic processes could not produce a complex multi-cellular living creature. In fact...previous to that statement, the writer concedes
life must have had some origin way back in time, perhaps in a chemical reaction of inorganic materials (in some primordial soup) or in some invasion from outer space. That may well be true. But what is clear is that any such origin for living things or living material must result in a very simple organism.

Once again, you prove yourself to be the world's worst paraphraser.

[Gunny]

Keep that in mind next time you decide to go on one of your 'u kant proov mah gawd don't eksist' rants.



:slap:

You seem confused. Par for the course, I suppose.

Darwinism has what to do with the subject at hand?
:laugh:


:lol:

Excuse me? I don't "go on rants". Fact is, you CAN'T prove he doesn't exist. Simple as that.

The difference being, I'm not trying to prove YOU right or wrong. I could care less if you worship the pink flamingo in front of your trailer.

My point, any time I engage in this same, worn out discussion is this: It's always the non-believers demanding proof, and attempting to use scientific theory (conjecture) as some sort of proof of their own.

Therein lies the rub: the dishonesty of non-believers. I've offered no proof. There is no actual physical evidence to support my belief.

Just as there is none to support yours. My belief is based on probability. Something anyone who thinks Man is God can't see because they refuse to.

Your decision. Believe what you want. Just don't go accusing me of trying to shove my beliefs down your throat when, from my perspective, just the opposite is true.

As far as Darwinism goes, it has everything to do with the discussion at hand since your side of the coin loves to just toss out the word "evolution" as a catch-all, and flip-flop in and out of "evolution" and "Darwin's theory of Evolution" just as the same crowd loves to flip-flop in and out of "abortion" and "partial-birth abortion".

"evolution" means one thing. "Darwin's theory of evolution" another. I'm just clarifying your stance for you since you obviously wish to be purposefully vague when accusing religious people of not believing in evolution.

Now, YOU personally may not have made any of the above comments but guess what? Guilt by association, bud. Just as your first response to my post indicates you pigeon-hole me into a group. You reap what you sow.

[LuvRPgrl]

You should read it with a tad more scrutiny. What he said was that inorganic processes could not produce a complex multi-cellular living creature. In fact...previous to that statement, the writer concedes

Once again, you prove yourself to be the world's worst paraphraser.

Yea, you missit completely bonehead.

His last paragraph, which I didnt paraphrase, you really outgt to find out what that means, is that HE ADMITS WE DONT KNOW HOW THE ORIGIN OF LIFE GOT STARTED, he made a few brief speculations, but nothing definitive, and then he got on about how there is PROOF of evolution.

I never took you for a retard, but Im rethinking my posistion

[J.T]

Yep, NEVER PROVEN.
Fail.

Nylonase comes to mind. So, too, do blue germs and MRSA.

[J.T]

Fact is, you CAN'T prove he doesn't exist. Simple as that.

:lol:


First, there is no onus to prove something does not exist when there is no evidence to prove that it does.

:slap:

[LuvRPgrl]

:lol:



:slap:

seems contradictory, when taken out of context.

But if evolutionists claim that evolution is a fact, and God doesnt exist, then
If they ask us to prove evolution isnt true, its not our onus to prove it until they have evidence to prove it does.
So, in essence, we arent really saying evolution doesnt exist, we are saying they dont have any evidence to prove it does.

[J.T]

So, in essence, we arent really saying evolution doesnt exist, we are saying they dont have any evidence to prove it does.

Because nylonase, dog breeds, MRSA, and blue germs don't exist :rolleyes:

But what else should we expect from you people? It's like arguing with the adherents of abortionism over whether humans are humans. You're incapable of honesty because it's all a matter of faith, not reason to you

[LuvRPgrl]

:lol:



:slap:

This is weird. I tried to quote your last post, but my pc wouldnt do it.
Anyways, the last post you made did not respond to anything of mine that you quoted.

You seem to be a bit mixed up.

[Wind Song]

I completely agree. Only Christians should have rights in the US.

[fj1200]

^I hope that was sarcasm.

[Wind Song]

^I hope that was sarcasm.

It's hard to tell these days, isn't it? Truth is stranger than fiction. I've never seen so many Christian extremists in America, as there are now. At the same time, we are more tolerant of others who are different than any other time in our history.

I'm struggling with how to be tolerant of extremists and not let them steal my civil liberties.

[revelarts]

It's hard to tell these days, isn't it? Truth is stranger than fiction. I've never seen so many Christian extremists in America, as there are now. At the same time, we are more tolerant of others who are different than any other time in our history.

I'm struggling with how to be tolerant of extremists and not let them steal my civil liberties.

http://www.autonerdz.com/yabbfiles/Smilies/scratch-head02.gif

wow you are left,
Ok
Bam!! RIGHT out the gate, Smear da Christians.
c'mon
um just how many Christians do you know that are trying to take your rights?
What rights , that have been defended in the U.S. for the past 100 years or so, are the Christians taking, exactly.


Your new here but As I mentioned I'm a christian and frankly I'm pretty committed to the Bill of rights, some might say that's an understatement.
I find that the left has a few pet rights they like to promote and ( and twist a bit to suits their taste) but some many would rather see gone. The right has it's pets of the bill of rights as well.

Not sure where you fall on that Spectrum Wind Song but I've found that many people aren't really very honest about the reading or promotion of Bill of Rights. But love to say the other side is Against them.

[Wind Song]

http://www.autonerdz.com/yabbfiles/Smilies/scratch-head02.gif

wow you are left,
Ok
Bam!! RIGHT out the gate, Smear da Christians.
c'mon
um just how many Christians do you know that are trying to take your rights?
What rights , that have been defended in the U.S. for the past 100 years or so, are the Christians taking, exactly.


Your new here but As I mentioned I'm a christian and frankly I'm pretty committed to the Bill of rights, some might say that's an understatement.
I find that the left has a few pet rights they like to promote and ( and twist a bit to suits their taste) but some many would rather see gone. The right has it's pets of the bill of rights as well.

Not sure where you fall on that Spectrum Wind Song but I've found that many people aren't really very honest about the reading or promotion of Bill of Rights. But love to say the other side is Against them.

I'm in favor of allowing homosexuals the civil right to marry each other. Christians are not supportive of that civil right, nor the right of homosexuals to serve openly in the military.

Further, some Christians want to supplant our constitutional law with biblical law. I think that's wrong.

Some Christians want the US to be a Christian theocracy. Bye bye religious freedom should they succeed.

Then there is the issue of contraceptive rights. Some Christians want to eliminate those too.

To be fair, Christians are not all alike. Some are extremely right wing, others are moderate, and some are liberal.

It is the right wing, religious extremists in America who concern me.

Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin represent two such Christians with national influence.

[Wind Song]

Regarding contraception:

"Christianity has always leveled against birth control.

For instance, the first historical argument leveled against the practice is that contraception is a form of murder. The second is that the practice is a type of sexual immorality. The third and fourth arguments perceive the practice to be rebellious acts of idolatry. The unrepentant practice of any one of these individual practices brings about condemnation both from the Bible and consistently by theologians throughout the Church’s history.
http://catholicexchange.com/2010/08/05/133036/

[revelarts]

I'm in favor of allowing homosexuals the civil right to marry each other. Christians are not supportive of that civil right, nor the right of homosexuals to serve openly in the military.

Further, some Christians want to supplant our constitutional law with biblical law. I think that's wrong.

Some Christians want the US to be a Christian theocracy. Bye bye religious freedom should they succeed.

Then there is the issue of contraceptive rights. Some Christians want to eliminate those too.

To be fair, Christians are not all alike. Some are extremely right wing, others are moderate, and some are liberal.

It is the right wing, religious extremists in America who concern me.

Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin represent two such Christians with national influence.

Yes there are Christians that claim a bit of everything politically.

but can you give me a couple of quotes from some about NEw Christian Theocracy the Christian right is working on? A few Quotes from Backman or Palin on that would be good.

And Can you show me anytime in U.S. history where gays had the right to marry?
And is the Gay thing the major problem with Christians in politics.

you said rights
I thought like right to vote, or speech, press and religion, or bear arms, no illegal search, trail by jury, no cruel and unusual punishment, and states rights.

Stuff like that.

[revelarts]

Regarding contraception:

"Christianity has always leveled against birth control.

For instance, the first historical argument leveled against the practice is that contraception is a form of murder. The second is that the practice is a type of sexual immorality. The third and fourth arguments perceive the practice to be rebellious acts of idolatry. The unrepentant practice of any one of these individual practices brings about condemnation both from the Bible and consistently by theologians throughout the Church’s history.
http://catholicexchange.com/2010/08/05/133036/

Can you show me the last few contraception bills the christian right proposed in congress? Or contraception in the republican platform?

[J.T]

Regarding contraception:

"Christianity has always leveled against birth control.
abortion is another story, though

Numbers 5:12-31 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water..... This passage describes a ritual that a husband could force his wife to endure if he suspected that she had engaged in an adulterous relationship. He would take her and an offering of barely meal to the tabernacle, where the priest would make a magical drink consisting of holy water and sweepings from the tabernacle floor. He would have the woman drink the water while he recited a curse on her. The curse would state that her abdomen would swell and her thigh waste away if she had committed adultery. Otherwise, the curse would have no effect. If she were pregnant at this time, the curse would certainly induce an abortion. Yet nobody seems to have been concerned about the fate of any embryo or fetus that was present. Needless to say, there was no similar magical test that a woman could require her husband to take if she suspected him of adultery.

[darin]

Regarding contraception:

"Christianity has always leveled against birth control.

For instance, the first historical argument leveled against the practice is that contraception is a form of murder. The second is that the practice is a type of sexual immorality. The third and fourth arguments perceive the practice to be rebellious acts of idolatry. The unrepentant practice of any one of these individual practices brings about condemnation both from the Bible and consistently by theologians throughout the Church’s history.
http://catholicexchange.com/2010/08/05/133036/

Makin' shit up isn't becoming. Show me 'always'. Define that term. Define 'christianity', too.

[fj1200]

It's hard to tell these days, isn't it? Truth is stranger than fiction. I've never seen so many Christian extremists in America, as there are now. At the same time, we are more tolerant of others who are different than any other time in our history.

I'm struggling with how to be tolerant of extremists and not let them steal my civil liberties.

I guess so because that was a ridiculous post.

And Christian extremists? I don't see many at all at least compared to governmental extremists.

[Wind Song]

Taking a position against contraception for religious reasons is an extreme position. The Catholic Church has been opposed to contraception for as far back as one can historically trace. Artificial contraception is considered a mortal sin.

Mormons say "it is contrary to the teachings of the Church artificially to curtail or prevent the birth of children. We believe that those who practice birth control will reap disappointment by and by."

Genesis 1:28 is commonly referred to as the “cultural mandate” wherein God calls Adam and Eve to “be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it.”

Many advocate that because Genesis 1:28 is a “creation ordinance,” the task of procreation or reproduction should be given primacy over the other aspects of marriage.

[revelarts]

Taking a position against contraception for religious reasons is an extreme position. The Catholic Church has been opposed to contraception for as far back as one can historically trace. Artificial contraception is considered a mortal sin.

Mormons say "it is contrary to the teachings of the Church artificially to curtail or prevent the birth of children. We believe that those who practice birth control will reap disappointment by and by."

Genesis 1:28 is commonly referred to as the “cultural mandate” wherein God calls Adam and Eve to “be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it.”

Many advocate that because Genesis 1:28 is a “creation ordinance,” the task of procreation or reproduction should be given primacy over the other aspects of marriage.

Sooooo um when has the Xtreme christian right presented any Bill in congress to that effect Wind Song?
Mormans believe people should go to temple in Utah and wear holy underwear. but they haven't taken it to congress as a proposal.
Christian believe in baptism , Sprinkling and Immersion but that hasn't made to to Congress yet either.

Aren't you for freedom of religion?
Do all Christian practices have to line up with gov't mandates or current pop cultures (low) standards?

What are you on about? Frankly it just sounds like you don't like religion and someones made you paranoid that "religious" people are going to get you. And Force you to Go to church and wear long dresses and no make up. Get real. you've been lied to.
Christians have been commaded to talk to people about changing their lifestyles.
Some times we talk VERY LOUD. but don't be afraid, we come in peace.
it's OK it's OK
put the gun down.... it will be all right. Were not here to hurt you. goood good.
easy easy...

[Wind Song]

Sooooo um when has the Xtreme christian right presented any Bill in congress to that effect Wind Song?
Mormans believe people should go to temple in Utah and wear holy underwear. but they haven't taken it to congress as a proposal.
Christian believe in baptism , Sprinkling and Immersion but that hasn't made to to Congress yet either.

Aren't you for freedom of religion?
Do all Christian practices have to line up with gov't mandates or current pop cultures (low) standards?

What are you on about? Frankly it just sounds like you don't like religion and someones made you paranoid that "religious" people are going to get you. And Force you to Go to church and wear long dresses and no make up. Get real. you've been lied to.
Christians have been commaded to talk to people about changing their lifestyles.
Some times we talk VERY LOUD. but don't be afraid, we come in peace.
it's OK it's OK
put the gun down.... it will be all right. Were not here to hurt you. goood good.
easy easy...

Go back and re-read my post. If you're one of the people that think "God's plan" doesn't include contraception, if you think your wife should have children whether she wants to or not, then I rest my case. Is procreation a choice, or not?

Does this guy represent your view?

"The idea that sex can be used for pleasure with no expectation of children coming from it is the basis for promiscuity, pre-marital sex, open marriage, homosexuality and many other perversions. The whole assumption that we can and should control fertility as human beings leads to infanticide and abortion, which become necessary when contraception fails (as all contraceptive methods often do). That this mentality exists among the pagans is nothing new, but for Christians to accept it is scandalous and novel."
http://politicsofthecrossresurrected.blogspot.com/2010/06/christian-case-against-contraception-by.html

How about this gal?

"Mary Pride, a home schooling advocate, is critical of sexual relations between husband and wife unless the act has procreation as its purpose. She considers sex for pleasure "sexual gluttony." Note her words: "The Bible teaches us that sex is only legitimate within marriage. It further teaches, as we have seen, that the natural purpose of marital sex is (1) physical oneness and (2) fruitfulness. Nowhere does the Bible say that the purpose of marital sex is climax, much much [sic] less climax at the expense of fruitfulness and oneness."41
http://www.equip.org/articles/should-christians-use-birth-control-


If you're not one of those extremists, what are you so worked up about?

I'm against this kind of extremism.

[darin]

^^ you use a lot of words, but your main points are logical fallacy.

[LuvRPgrl]

Go back and re-read my post. If you're one of the people that think "God's plan" doesn't include contraception, if you think your wife should have children whether she wants to or not, then I rest my case. Is procreation a choice, or not?

Does this guy represent your view?

"The idea that sex can be used for pleasure with no expectation of children coming from it is the basis for promiscuity, pre-marital sex, open marriage, homosexuality and many other perversions. The whole assumption that we can and should control fertility as human beings leads to infanticide and abortion, which become necessary when contraception fails (as all contraceptive methods often do). That this mentality exists among the pagans is nothing new, but for Christians to accept it is scandalous and novel."
http://politicsofthecrossresurrected.blogspot.com/2010/06/christian-case-against-contraception-by.html

How about this gal?

"Mary Pride, a home schooling advocate, is critical of sexual relations between husband and wife unless the act has procreation as its purpose. She considers sex for pleasure "sexual gluttony." Note her words: "The Bible teaches us that sex is only legitimate within marriage. It further teaches, as we have seen, that the natural purpose of marital sex is (1) physical oneness and (2) fruitfulness. Nowhere does the Bible say that the purpose of marital sex is climax, much much [sic] less climax at the expense of fruitfulness and oneness."41
http://www.equip.org/articles/should-christians-use-birth-control-


If you're not one of those extremists, what are you so worked up about?

I'm against this kind of extremism.;;

If thats what the Bible says, whats so extreme about that?

R U claiming Catholics for the most part are radical right wing extremists?

[revelarts]

Go back and re-read my post. If you're one of the people that think "God's plan" doesn't include contraception, if you think your wife should have children whether she wants to or not, then I rest my case. Is procreation a choice, or not?

Does this guy represent your view?

"The idea that sex can be used for pleasure with no expectation of children coming from it is the basis for promiscuity, pre-marital sex, open marriage, homosexuality and many other perversions. The whole assumption that we can and should control fertility as human beings leads to infanticide and abortion, which become necessary when contraception fails (as all contraceptive methods often do). That this mentality exists among the pagans is nothing new, but for Christians to accept it is scandalous and novel."
http://politicsofthecrossresurrected.blogspot.com/2010/06/christian-case-against-contraception-by.html

How about this gal?

"Mary Pride, a home schooling advocate, is critical of sexual relations between husband and wife unless the act has procreation as its purpose. She considers sex for pleasure "sexual gluttony." Note her words: "The Bible teaches us that sex is only legitimate within marriage. It further teaches, as we have seen, that the natural purpose of marital sex is (1) physical oneness and (2) fruitfulness. Nowhere does the Bible say that the purpose of marital sex is climax, much much [sic] less climax at the expense of fruitfulness and oneness."41
http://www.equip.org/articles/should-christians-use-birth-control-


If you're not one of those extremists, what are you so worked up about?

I'm against this kind of extremism.

If that's their religious position then what are YOU so worked up about? Your the one that brought it up. Quoting modern and ancient sources on contraception.

They are not asking you to practice it. Where's you left leaning celebration and tolerance for alternative lifestyles?
Is it broad enough to included various Christian ideas of sexuality as well as gay. Or are only gay and promiscuous sexuality NOT extreme, or the new NORMAL?

It sound like to me you want those Christians to Change their ways.
And you've yet to post any LAWS proposed by these EXTREMIST.

[J.T]

;;

If thats what the Bible says, whats so extreme about that?

So... bin Laden wasn't so extreme? 'Cause he was just doin' what's in the Torah and Koran...

[logroller]

Christians have been commaded to talk to people about changing their lifestyles.
Some times we talk VERY LOUD. but don't be afraid, we come in peace.
it's OK it's OK
put the gun down.... it will be all right. Were not here to hurt you. goood good.
easy easy...

Uh Oh. stranger danger. as thoreou said "If I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life."

[Wind Song]

The OP poses the question, "Should non-christians be allowed to marry." It's a fair question, because it illustrates the dilemma with marriage equality. Those opposed seek to legislate their morality. In effect, they deny rights to non-christians to marry. It is Christians who are opposed to civil marriage rights for all.

[revelarts]

Uh Oh. stranger danger. as thoreou said "If I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life."
LOL
Yeah that's true in some cases.
Maybe another reason Thoreou lived in the woods by himself?
But and Ambulances do it everyday I'd say they more good than harm.
Salvation Army's mission is "with the conscious design of doing .... good" around the world. Just part of the picture for them.

[Wind Song]

If that's their religious position then what are YOU so worked up about? Your the one that brought it up. Quoting modern and ancient sources on contraception.

They are not asking you to practice it. Where's you left leaning celebration and tolerance for alternative lifestyles?
Is it broad enough to included various Christian ideas of sexuality as well as gay. Or are only gay and promiscuous sexuality NOT extreme, or the new NORMAL?

It sound like to me you want those Christians to Change their ways.
And you've yet to post any LAWS proposed by these EXTREMIST.

One law proposed by extremists is the DOMA. Based on Christian ethics, they propose to limit CIVIL marriage. That's wrong. They have every right to limit who marries in their churches, not in city hall. They continually campaign to have ALL of society live by Christian standards.

No non-christian could be elected POTUS in the US.

[Kathianne]

One law proposed by extremists is the DOMA. Based on Christian ethics, they propose to limit CIVIL marriage. That's wrong. They have every right to limit who marries in their churches, not in city hall.

DOMA has been law since 1996 when President Clinton signed it. Personally I think it should go, but a 'proposal' it is not.

[Wind Song]

DOMA has been law since 1996 when President Clinton signed it. Personally I think it should go, but a 'proposal' it is not.

They propose the law remain permanent.

[Kathianne]

They propose the law remain permanent.
:laugh2:

[Wind Song]

There is more than one meaning of the word, "propose". I see you're a literalist. I'm not. Words have many different interpretations depending on their use. One definition of the word, "propose" is
to put forward (an idea or plan) for consideration or discussion by others. The debate on the DOMA is an idea or plan that is in dispute by American citizens.

But, if you want to correct me, I don't mind. I stand corrected.

[Abbey Marie]

Taking a position against contraception for religious reasons is an extreme position. The Catholic Church has been opposed to contraception for as far back as one can historically trace. Artificial contraception is considered a mortal sin.

Mormons say "it is contrary to the teachings of the Church artificially to curtail or prevent the birth of children. We believe that those who practice birth control will reap disappointment by and by."

Genesis 1:28 is commonly referred to as the “cultural mandate” wherein God calls Adam and Eve to “be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it.”

Many advocate that because Genesis 1:28 is a “creation ordinance,” the task of procreation or reproduction should be given primacy over the other aspects of marriage.

I always suspected the Church was just trying to ensure there were as many Catholics created as possible. Multiplying was pretty much a necessity for Adam and Eve.

[LuvRPgrl]

So... bin Laden wasn't so extreme? 'Cause he was just doin' what's in the Torah and Koran...
If thats the logic you use sto arrive at conclusions, that explains alot

Just because something in the Koran is extreme doesnt make everything in the Koran extreme
so thats, true in the Bible also

and actually in the Bible Jesus berated the legalists, legalism is what leads to extremism, sallyo Jesus actually told us to follow the spirit of the law, and DONT engage in extremism

You should brush upon your theology before using it as a basis for your posistion

[J.T]

If thats the logic you use sto arrive at conclusions


;;

If thats what the Bible says, whats so extreme about that?
:slap:
and actually in the Bible Jesus berated the legalists, legalism is what leads to extremism

So I take it you're a 'living document' sort when it comes to SCOTUS?

[Wind Song]

I always suspected the Church was just trying to ensure there were as many Catholics created as possible. Multiplying was pretty much a necessity for Adam and Eve.

Catholics in India have told their congregants to have more babies.

[BoogyMan]

So... bin Laden wasn't so extreme? 'Cause he was just doin' what's in the Torah and Koran...

The Torah? You do realize that is the first 5 books written by Moses, right? Bin Laden's actions had NOTHING to do with those works. If you wish to debate, you should study your subject a bit first, don't you think?

[J.T]

The Torah? You do realize that is the first 5 books written by Moses, right? Bin Laden's actions had NOTHING to do with those works.
I see you don't know what Islam is

[LuvRPgrl]

:slap:

So I take it you're a 'living document' sort when it comes to SCOTUS?

Not all. You have extremists that are legalists
you have extremists that interpet everything to their suiting
Then you have us middle of the roaders, we realize the law is important as laid down, but once in a great while, circumstances are taken into account.

[BoogyMan]

I see you don't know what Islam is

I know EXACTLY what Islam is and it has nothing to do with the works of Moses. Egads.

[LuvRPgrl]

I know EXACTLY what Islam is and it has nothing to do with the works of Moses. Egads.

In fact, there are millions of non muslims who know more about Islam than most muslims do.