To my Christian brothers and sisters

[Abbey Marie]

Since the term "marriage" is now tainted, I think it is time we created a new term for marriage within the church. Complete with some new vows to mark the shift back to biblical man-woman marriage.

Let the others use the term marriage. We will forge ahead with something new and un-tainted that they cannot claim; always staying one step ahead (or behind, as it were).

We could call it a Cana ceremony, for example.

And sue for a new check box on all forms.
1. Married
2. Single
3. Divorced
4. Widowed
5. Joined in Christ?

[Drummond]

Since the term "marriage" is now tainted, I think it is time we created a new term for marriage within the church. Complete with some new vows to mark the shift back to biblical man-woman marriage.

Let the others use the term marriage. We will forge ahead with something new and un-tainted that they cannot claim; always staying one step ahead (or behind, as it were).

We could call it a Cana ceremony, for example.

And sue for a new check box on all forms.
1. Married
2. Single
3. Divorced
4. Widowed
5. Joined in Christ?

Abbey - it's not so much that the 'term' is now 'tainted'. It's that its usage is now sometimes incorrect. This has been perverted.

If 'marriage' becomes associated with a perverted usage, then what's to stop the Left, and other so-called 'progressive' types, from also perverting the usage of others ?

How far do you go in running away from this process, anyway ? Does it never stop ? Will new terms need to KEEP being introduced, as other usages and associations become twisted over time ? Is there no point at which a stand is taken, a line drawn in the sand where you say, 'No, Leftie perverts, you do NOT TWIST THIS' ?

[jimnyc]

I grew up looking at it as a 'religious institution' anyway. I almost think 'religious marriage' should be sufficient. But there should be a way of acknowledging that a religious marriage between a man and a woman is not the same as a newly defined marriage, whether others agree or not. It's not theirs to choose what we like, or would like to alter.

I'm already prepared if anyone ever asks me again 'are you married?" - "Sort of, but mine is a religious marriage of the ancient tradition, which is between a man and a woman".

And some will still be offended by the very thought of us even discussing this, and will scoff at it and such. Only others are to be tolerated.

[Abbey Marie]

I grew up looking at it as a 'religious institution' anyway. I almost think 'religious marriage' should be sufficient. But there should be a way of acknowledging that a religious marriage between a man and a woman is not the same as a newly defined marriage, whether others agree or not. It's not theirs to choose what we like, or would like to alter.

I'm already prepared if anyone ever asks me again 'are you married?" - "Sort of, but mine is a religious marriage of the ancient tradition, which is between a man and a woman".

And some will still be offended by the very thought of us even discussing this, and will scoff at it and such. Only others are to be tolerated.

I like it :cool:

[jimnyc]

I like it :cool:

It'll piss some off, but it'll make me feel better. And besides, shouldn't other people be more tolerating of me? More accepting? :thumb:

[Abbey Marie]

It'll piss some off, but it'll make me feel better. And besides, shouldn't other people be more tolerating of me? More accepting? :thumb:

No, you evil white Christian male! You deserve nothing!

[Abbey Marie]

Abbey - it's not so much that the 'term' is now 'tainted'. It's that its usage is now sometimes incorrect. This has been perverted.

If 'marriage' becomes associated with a perverted usage, then what's to stop the Left, and other so-called 'progressive' types, from also perverting the usage of others ?

How far do you go in running away from this process, anyway ? Does it never stop ? Will new terms need to KEEP being introduced, as other usages and associations become twisted over time ? Is there no point at which a stand is taken, a line drawn in the sand where you say, 'No, Leftie perverts, you do NOT TWIST THIS' ?

Tainted, incorrect, it's semantics to me. When something sacred is changed to include that which we find sinful, I feel we should move on in some way. As for terms continually being introduced, I think this would be the first time the term marriage itself is changed in thousands of years.

[aboutime]

Abbey - it's not so much that the 'term' is now 'tainted'. It's that its usage is now sometimes incorrect. This has been perverted.

If 'marriage' becomes associated with a perverted usage, then what's to stop the Left, and other so-called 'progressive' types, from also perverting the usage of others ?

How far do you go in running away from this process, anyway ? Does it never stop ? Will new terms need to KEEP being introduced, as other usages and associations become twisted over time ? Is there no point at which a stand is taken, a line drawn in the sand where you say, 'No, Leftie perverts, you do NOT TWIST THIS' ?



Sir Drummond. Since I can brag about being happily married to the SAME LADY for 46 years, as the mother of our two sons, and grandmother of six grandchildren.
Both of us have always been blessed (a terrible word to the non-believers) to have had our marriage blessed, and ordained in March of 1969, by a Minister of the Presbyterian faith. In the Eyes of GOD.
And..to this day. Both of us have been thankful for remembering our promises to One-another, based on the religious sanctions both of us have always believed in, and practiced.

To those who marry out of nothing more than a sexual, or friendly context, despite their shared, or mutual Male, or Female choices for partners. THEY eventually must answer for their sins. Either denied, or laughed at by both.
Society has become their playground of ignorance, abuse, stupidity, and hatred. That is sure to bring them DOWN...sooner or later.

[fj1200]

Since the term "marriage" is now tainted, I think it is time we created a new term for marriage within the church.

And what of your gay Christian brothers and sisters who desire nothing more than to be "joined in Christ" in a church ceremony? Setting aside your romanticized notion of biblical marriage for the moment.


I grew up looking at it as a 'religious institution' anyway.

You could stick it to the man by being "joined in Christ" in a church without the state validation. That would show 'em.

[Abbey Marie]

And what of your gay Christian brothers and sisters who desire nothing more than to be "joined in Christ" in a church ceremony? Setting aside your romanticized notion of biblical marriage for the moment.



You could stick it to the man by being "joined in Christ" in a church without the state validation. That would show 'em.


Lol, I was going to post: Cue fj1200's disagreeing post in 3...2...1 :laugh2:

You know, maybe I have misjudged you all this time, or more likely, you have changed over the years. You may not self-identify as liberal, and you may have some Conservative beliefs, but your socially-liberal bona fides are impressive, and can not be denied.

[jimnyc]

You could stick it to the man by being "joined in Christ" in a church without the state validation. That would show 'em.

That works for me. They'll have equal rights under the law, but clearly there will be a difference between a religious marriage and what I see as perversion of marriage. Nuttin' wrong with wanting to be a little different than the in crowd!

[fj1200]

That works for me. They'll have equal rights under the law, but clearly there will be a difference between a religious marriage and what I see as perversion of marriage. Nuttin' wrong with wanting to be a little different than the in crowd!

Welcome to small government conservatism. ;)

[jimnyc]

Welcome to small government conservatism. ;)

Shut up before I stab you. :poke:

[Max R.]

I grew up looking at it as a 'religious institution' anyway. I almost think 'religious marriage' should be sufficient. But there should be a way of acknowledging that a religious marriage between a man and a woman is not the same as a newly defined marriage, whether others agree or not. It's not theirs to choose what we like, or would like to alter.

I'm already prepared if anyone ever asks me again 'are you married?" - "Sort of, but mine is a religious marriage of the ancient tradition, which is between a man and a woman".

And some will still be offended by the very thought of us even discussing this, and will scoff at it and such. Only others are to be tolerated.
Non-traditional marriages have been around for decades, if not centuries. Being married by a Justice of the Peace or at the county clerk's office isn't the same, religiously, as being married by a priest, rabbi, imam, shaman, witch doctor, whatever.

Catholics don't (or didn't, I don't know these days) recognize secular divorce, so if they marry in church, divorce and then remarry at the county clerk's office, the Church doesn't recognize them as being married and any children of the second marriage are considered bastards.

Because two people marry, divorce and remarry, while technically adulterers, does affect my marriage one iota. Same goes for two gays in San Francisco or two lesbians in Key West. My marriage is between my wife and I. Other people, regardless of their sexual preferences or habits, don't factor into it.

[aboutime]

Non-traditional marriages have been around for decades, if not centuries. Being married by a Justice of the Peace or at the county clerk's office isn't the same, religiously, as being married by a priest, rabbi, imam, shaman, witch doctor, whatever.

Catholics don't (or didn't, I don't know these days) recognize secular divorce, so if they marry in church, divorce and then remarry at the county clerk's office, the Church doesn't recognize them as being married and any children of the second marriage are considered bastards.

Because two people marry, divorce and remarry, while technically adulterers, does affect my marriage one iota. Same goes for two gays in San Francisco or two lesbians in Key West. My marriage is between my wife and I. Other people, regardless of their sexual preferences or habits, don't factor into it.


Max. EXACTLY! If we mind our own business, and others mind theirs. WHAT'S DA BIG DEAL?

[fj1200]

Lol, I was going to post: Cue fj1200's disagreeing post in 3...2...1 :laugh2:

You know, maybe I have misjudged you all this time, or more likely, you have changed over the years. You may not self-identify as liberal, and you may have some Conservative beliefs, but your socially-liberal bona fides are impressive, and can not be denied.

A. That didn't answer the question.
2. I've never suggested I was a social conservative in the vernacular of the day.
c. How is it conservative to demand that government create laws based on your beliefs?
iv. My apologies for injecting an alternative viewpoint into a debate site. My bad.

[jimnyc]

I think it's more like wanting them to create laws to protect people from the shit laws they make. :) Not everything is a one size fits all, it's really that simple. If my goal would be to have religious marriage to be acknowledged as different than a "civil" marriage, no one else should care, it's certainly not harming others. Admittedly, in a legal sense, we'll not be seeing that happen.

Besides, it was ALWAYS about "equality under the law". So having even a separate name for a gay marriage shouldn't be an issue nor offend anyone. From day one I said the civil unions should have been fine and give them 100% equal rights. And I still say that's what they should change it to.

[indago]

I think it's more like wanting them to create laws to protect people from the shit laws they make. :) Not everything is a one size fits all, it's really that simple. If my goal would be to have religious marriage to be acknowledged as different than a "civil" marriage, no one else should care, it's certainly not harming others. Admittedly, in a legal sense, we'll not be seeing that happen.

Besides, it was ALWAYS about "equality under the law". So having even a separate name for a gay marriage shouldn't be an issue nor offend anyone. From day one I said the civil unions should have been fine and give them 100% equal rights. And I still say that's what they should change it to.

You mean, SEPARATE BUT EQUAL?

[Drummond]

Tainted, incorrect, it's semantics to me. When something sacred is changed to include that which we find sinful, I feel we should move on in some way. As for terms continually being introduced, I think this would be the first time the term marriage itself is changed in thousands of years.

Looks like we have to disagree on this ---

'Semantics' may be involved, sure, but it's more than that. Words are meant to define, and 'marriage' once .. and for a VERY long time .. had a particular meaning. one always meant to be an absolute standard. Along come a bunch of Lefties to corrupt that meaning, and even the basis for it, in order to advance their corruptive and standard-warping agenda.

The real point is that if this can be done once, it can be done again and again; and, ask yourself, TO WHAT PURPOSE, ANYWAY ?

As I see it, sociologically speaking, there are two issues involved. One, do you permit Lefties to erode and destroy the social and moral bedrock upon which decent society has long been founded ? Two: the process of allowing this to happen involves a running-away from all that's been perceptually constant. Corrupt the meaning of marriage, and you not only set a precedent, you concede that the process can, most probably will, happen AGAIN and AGAIN.

A bedrock which is good, decent and sound should surely NOT be one you're prepared to run from. Do so, and you encourage more of the same, and you make it ever-harder to justify ever drawing that much-needed line in the sand.

The Left want to tell you how you must think. If they can alter the language at will, to alter thinking, then by just doing that, they're a long way ahead to an outright victory. Orwell, I submit, knew what he was talking about !!

All those who contributed to the Christian Bible: did they believe that the Bible was a 'temporary' work, written just for the moment, subject to whatever degree of change the mere passage of time could bring into effect ? Or, was and is the Bible always more than that ?

[tailfins]

Where's the opposition to homosexual marriage? Where's the pickets? Where were the campaigns to defeat politicians that supported homosexual marriage? Could it be that a vacuum was created by our own laziness?

[Drummond]

I grew up looking at it as a 'religious institution' anyway. I almost think 'religious marriage' should be sufficient. But there should be a way of acknowledging that a religious marriage between a man and a woman is not the same as a newly defined marriage, whether others agree or not. It's not theirs to choose what we like, or would like to alter.

I'm already prepared if anyone ever asks me again 'are you married?" - "Sort of, but mine is a religious marriage of the ancient tradition, which is between a man and a woman".

And some will still be offended by the very thought of us even discussing this, and will scoff at it and such. Only others are to be tolerated.

I think, Jim, that you're helping to illustrate my point for me. In times past, the question ARE YOU MARRIED need only have been answered with a YES or a NO.

But, now, because the meaning of marriage has been chipped away at, you're in the position of answering what WAS once a simple and very straightforward question with an answer where you have to qualify that answer with detailed explanation. Why ? Because what was easy, straightforward, well-understood, has now been perverted and corrupted so as to damage your ability to properly answer without qualification. A one-time 'yes' is now a 'sort of', etc etc ...

[Drummond]

Where's the opposition to homosexual marriage? Where's the pickets? Where were the campaigns to defeat politicians that supported homosexual marriage? Could it be that a vacuum was created by our own laziness?

Try it here, now, in LeftieLand Plus. You'd maybe risk being arrested ...

[aboutime]

Where's the opposition to homosexual marriage? Where's the pickets? Where were the campaigns to defeat politicians that supported homosexual marriage? Could it be that a vacuum was created by our own laziness?


tailfins. YOUR progressive friends in the SCOTUS have created the vacuum. Not our laziness. Pure bias, ignorance, and abuse of the constitution overruled pickets, and campaigns to defeat politicians.

The intentional DUMBING-DOWN of Americans who have been the recipients of FAILED education, who then voted twice for the man destined to destroy America is to blame.

[jimnyc]

I think, Jim, that you're helping to illustrate my point for me. In times past, the question ARE YOU MARRIED need only have been answered with a YES or a NO.

But, now, because the meaning of marriage has been chipped away at, you're in the position of answering what WAS once a simple and very straightforward question with an answer where you have to qualify that answer with detailed explanation. Why ? Because what was easy, straightforward, well-understood, has now been perverted and corrupted so as to damage your ability to properly answer without qualification. A one-time 'yes' is now a 'sort of', etc etc ...

Yup. Look at Facebook as a tiny example. Instead of the old "male" or "female" as your choices for gender - there are now 58, yes FIFTY EIGHT choices for gender options. WTF? It's this catering to the wackanoodles of the world that has now made the abnormal, normal. Pick a bathroom, any bathroom, however you feel that day. Shit that used to get ya tossed in the local jail is now demanded as a right.

Applications used to have... Male _______ Female ________

Soon it's going to be:


Agender
Androgyne
Androgynous
Bigender
Cis
Cisgender
Cis Female
Cis Male
Cis Man
Cis Woman
Cisgender Female
Cisgender Male
Cisgender Man
Cisgender Woman
Female to Male
FTM
Gender Fluid
Gender Nonconforming
Gender Questioning
Gender Variant
Genderqueer
Intersex
Male to Female
MTF
Neither
Neutrois
Non-binary
Other
Pangender
Trans
Trans*
Trans Female
Trans* Female
Trans Male
Trans* Male
Trans Man
Trans* Man
Trans Person
Trans* Person
Trans Woman
Trans* Woman
Transfeminine
Transgender
Transgender Female
Transgender Male
Transgender Man
Transgender Person
Transgender Woman
Transmasculine
Transsexual
Transsexual Female
Transsexual Male
Transsexual Man
Transsexual Person
Transsexual Woman
Two-Spirit

[red state]

Lol, I was going to post: Cue fj1200's disagreeing post in 3...2...1 :laugh2:

You know, maybe I have misjudged you all this time, or more likely, you have changed over the years. You may not self-identify as liberal, and you may have some Conservative beliefs, but your socially-liberal bona fides are impressive, and can not be denied.

For what FJ suggests, THEY would have to repent of their homosexual perversions and send and actually join in Christ before being joined by Christ in marriage (HOLY marriage anyway). that is what the left in their very limited understanding do NOT understand.

[Drummond]

Yup. Look at Facebook as a tiny example. Instead of the old "male" or "female" as your choices for gender - there are now 58, yes FIFTY EIGHT choices for gender options. WTF? It's this catering to the wackanoodles of the world that has now made the abnormal, normal. Pick a bathroom, any bathroom, however you feel that day. Shit that used to get ya tossed in the local jail is now demanded as a right.

Applications used to have... Male _______ Female ________

Soon it's going to be:


Agender
Androgyne
Androgynous
Bigender
Cis
Cisgender
Cis Female
Cis Male
Cis Man
Cis Woman
Cisgender Female
Cisgender Male
Cisgender Man
Cisgender Woman
Female to Male
FTM
Gender Fluid
Gender Nonconforming
Gender Questioning
Gender Variant
Genderqueer
Intersex
Male to Female
MTF
Neither
Neutrois
Non-binary
Other
Pangender
Trans
Trans*
Trans Female
Trans* Female
Trans Male
Trans* Male
Trans Man
Trans* Man
Trans Person
Trans* Person
Trans Woman
Trans* Woman
Transfeminine
Transgender
Transgender Female
Transgender Male
Transgender Man
Transgender Person
Transgender Woman
Transmasculine
Transsexual
Transsexual Female
Transsexual Male
Transsexual Man
Transsexual Person
Transsexual Woman
Two-Spirit

Words fail me !

They don't fail Facebook, obviously .. but they fail me !!!

Nuts ...

[Drummond]

For what FJ suggests, THEY would have to repent of their homosexual perversions and send and actually join in Christ before being joined by Christ in marriage (HOLY marriage anyway). that is what the left in their very limited understanding do NOT understand.

... and never will.

They have no interest in understanding. Worse, if they had their way, the Left would insist that nobody else did, either ...

[fj1200]

For what FJ suggests, THEY would have to repent of their homosexual perversions and send and actually join in Christ before being joined by Christ in marriage (HOLY marriage anyway). that is what the left in their very limited understanding do NOT understand.

I think they're reading the bible just fine. It won't be long before a major church willingly performs gay marriages.


... and never will.

They have no interest in understanding. Worse, if they had their way, the Left would insist that nobody else did, either ...

"Waa, waa, left. Waa waa, left."

[gabosaurus]

Once again ... why should it bother you? :dunno:
I was married in the presence of God. I don't need a special term for my marriage. I don't consider my marriage to be better or worse than that of any other couple.
I define "marriage" as the union of two adults who love each other. Two adults. Not three or more. Not children. Not animals. Not inanimate objects.
Like I have said before, I am much more disgusted by forced marriages. Or arranged marriages. I don't care who you are, what your physical or mental condition is or what drawbacks your life is saddled with. If you can't meet someone through personal contact, you likely don't need to be married. Simple as that.
I don't see same sex marriage as "sick." A 60-year-old rich/famous person picking up a 20-something partner is sick. Mail-order brides are sick. Giving someone money or property to marry their kid is sick. Dumping your current wife/husband to marry someone younger is sick.

[indago]

Once again ... why should it bother you? :dunno:
I was married in the presence of God. I don't need a special term for my marriage. I don't consider my marriage to be better or worse than that of any other couple.
I define "marriage" as the union of two adults who love each other. Two adults. Not three or more. Not children. Not animals. Not inanimate objects.
Like I have said before, I am much more disgusted by forced marriages. Or arranged marriages. I don't care who you are, what your physical or mental condition is or what drawbacks your life is saddled with. If you can't meet someone through personal contact, you likely don't need to be married. Simple as that.
I don't see same sex marriage as "sick." A 60-year-old rich/famous person picking up a 20-something partner is sick. Mail-order brides are sick. Giving someone money or property to marry their kid is sick. Dumping your current wife/husband to marry someone younger is sick.

Of course, that is YOUR opinion...

[Jeff]

Lol, I was going to post: Cue fj1200's disagreeing post in 3...2...1 :laugh2:

You know, maybe I have misjudged you all this time, or more likely, you have changed over the years. You may not self-identify as liberal, and you may have some Conservative beliefs, but your socially-liberal bona fides are impressive, and can not be denied.

Naaa, make no mistake he is a liberal. :laugh:

[Jeff]

Once again ... why should it bother you? :dunno:
I was married in the presence of God. I don't need a special term for my marriage. I don't consider my marriage to be better or worse than that of any other couple.
I define "marriage" as the union of two adults who love each other. Two adults. Not three or more. Not children. Not animals. Not inanimate objects.
Like I have said before, I am much more disgusted by forced marriages. Or arranged marriages. I don't care who you are, what your physical or mental condition is or what drawbacks your life is saddled with. If you can't meet someone through personal contact, you likely don't need to be married. Simple as that.
I don't see same sex marriage as "sick." A 60-year-old rich/famous person picking up a 20-something partner is sick. Mail-order brides are sick. Giving someone money or property to marry their kid is sick. Dumping your current wife/husband to marry someone younger is sick.


Why should a flag flying bother anyone ???

Honestly if churches start marrying fags it takes away from all that was righteous about Marriage, believe it or not there are still folks that wait until they are married to have sex, Marriage is a very important thing to many and making it legal for Steve to play with Johny well that just doesn't fit in the equation.


You also say not children or animals and such, pedophiles have been screaming they are born that way, why is it OK for the fags but not the other perverts, I know gabs it's against the law, but so was sodomy for a long time, the way this country is going I will be marrying my bike in no time.

[tailfins]

Try it here, now, in LeftieLand Plus. You'd maybe risk being arrested ...

Nigel Farage illustrated he battleline well in UK: Protection of religious objectors.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2Dk7qj8ZnY

[jimnyc]

Of course, that is YOUR opinion...

The definition of those that disagree is all that matters. Haven't you been paying attention to the tolerance messages around the nation?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Since the term "marriage" is now tainted, I think it is time we created a new term for marriage within the church. Complete with some new vows to mark the shift back to biblical man-woman marriage.

Let the others use the term marriage. We will forge ahead with something new and un-tainted that they cannot claim; always staying one step ahead (or behind, as it were).

We could call it a Cana ceremony, for example.

And sue for a new check box on all forms.
1. Married
2. Single
3. Divorced
4. Widowed
5. Joined in Christ?

How about this....
M an
A nd
W oman
J oined
I n
C hrist

Have a Mawjic ceremony instead? Opposite sexes, no plurality other than a single duet comprised of one male and one female.. -Tyr

[fj1200]

Naaa, make no mistake he is a liberal. :laugh:

Shh, it's an agenda thing. :poke:

[gabosaurus]

There is a difference between our country and many others.
In our country, people are free to be who they are and believe what they want.
In countries that don't allow dissent, anyone who steps out of line disappears.

I am a Christian, but I recognize that not everyone is. Our country guarantees freedom of and from religion.
There are some who believe that, because they oppose homosexuality, they can ignore the law.
What if I decided that, because of my religious beliefs, I am opposed to guns. (Thou Shalt Not Kill and all that) Can I start refusing service to anyone who owns a gun?

[Noir]

I think it is time we created a new term for marriage within the church.

Within "the church"?
As in 'just the protestant church' or 'just the catholic church' or what?

[tailfins]

Within "the church"?
As in 'just the protestant church' or 'just the catholic church' or what?

Let's see: Gay marriage is law in Dubin, but isn't in Belfast. You tell me.

[DragonStryk72]

Non-traditional marriages have been around for decades, if not centuries. Being married by a Justice of the Peace or at the county clerk's office isn't the same, religiously, as being married by a priest, rabbi, imam, shaman, witch doctor, whatever.

Catholics don't (or didn't, I don't know these days) recognize secular divorce, so if they marry in church, divorce and then remarry at the county clerk's office, the Church doesn't recognize them as being married and any children of the second marriage are considered bastards.

Because two people marry, divorce and remarry, while technically adulterers, does affect my marriage one iota. Same goes for two gays in San Francisco or two lesbians in Key West. My marriage is between my wife and I. Other people, regardless of their sexual preferences or habits, don't factor into it.

Yeah, I mean, to start with, marriage has only been primarily about love for like the last 100 years or so. Then of course, you have the thousands of years polygamy has been around, and is still practiced in parts of the world, so the whole "It's been one man and one woman" thing is actually the bastardization of the word's meaning.

[gabosaurus]

My daughter showed me this from her twitter page. It was posted by one of her church friends. :cool:


All you homophobic Christians need to eat a cookie and take a nap and maybe pray a little so your hatred can be forgiven.

[Jeff]

There is a difference between our country and many others.
In our country, people are free to be who they are and believe what they want.
In countries that don't allow dissent, anyone who steps out of line disappears.

I am a Christian, but I recognize that not everyone is. Our country guarantees freedom of and from religion.
There are some who believe that, because they oppose homosexuality, they can ignore the law.
What if I decided that, because of my religious beliefs, I am opposed to guns. (Thou Shalt Not Kill and all that) Can I start refusing service to anyone who owns a gun?

I agree Gabs we are a Country that has many differences , your example of guns is a failure, guns don't kill, people kill. But just as we are all different what gives anyone the right to say OK we are different but now you have to allow us to be part of y'all and on top of that y'all must let us join, change your beliefs and go against all you believe to make us happy.

That is my problem, if they had Unions, so basically they could add each other to health insurance and stuff like that I wouldn't of liked it but would of lived with it, but when they are now forcing what I believe in to change our views then we are not free to believe as we wish are we ?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

My daughter showed me this from her twitter page. It was posted by one of her church friends. :cool:
Expressing strong disapproval is not hatred. Hatred would be wishing harm or action against such people. Myself, I do not wish that upon any of them.
Yet they wish to command and force us not to teach our Christian morality to our children.. That is not going to cut it my friend. That's invading not only my space but is a direct attack upon my children. I'll not abide that harmful, invasive action with silence and inaction.
Perhaps you can answer why they ignore the muslims that murder them for their perversion while they ally with our enemies to destroy us?
Seems to me most of the hatred comes from them.. -Tyr

[jimnyc]

Within "the church"?
As in 'just the protestant church' or 'just the catholic church' or what?

Any church that still believes in the traditional marriage, and that follows scripture, and follows Jesus. Personally, I go by the Catholic church myself, and I certainly don't expect them to start allowing gay marriage within their churches anytime soon. If other denominations start to, that's certainly their choice to make. I can't imagine too many churches out there though having congregations out there that are going to fully be on board.

[jimnyc]

And FWIW, stores ALREADY deny service to folks with guns. We've seen it posted here many times. Wasn't starbucks one of the most recent? So yeah, surely if one can deny entry to someone with a gun, they can deny entry to someone else they disagree with regarding constitutional rights.

[jimnyc]

Yeah, I mean, to start with, marriage has only been primarily about love for like the last 100 years or so. Then of course, you have the thousands of years polygamy has been around, and is still practiced in parts of the world, so the whole "It's been one man and one woman" thing is actually the bastardization of the word's meaning.

Are we talking here in AMERICA? Has the USA perverted this meaning, or has the definition ALWAYS been the same within our country? Muslims have been stoning people for thousands of years too. Lots of things outside of the USA have been going on a lot longer. I think forced marriages have been around a long time too. Marriages to underage girls been around a lot longer than the USA as well. Women have less rights in so many other parts of the world as well, when coming into a marriage.

[tailfins]

Any church that still believes in the traditional marriage, and that follows scripture, and follows Jesus. Personally, I go by the Catholic church myself, and 1)I certainly don't expect them to start allowing gay marriage within their churches anytime soon. If other denominations start to, that's certainly their choice to make. 2)I can't imagine too many churches out there though having congregations out there that are going to fully be on board.

1) Don't bet your last nickel on that one!

2) The Members of the National Council of Churches with a claimed membership of 45 million can be expected to be first in line.

http://nationalcouncilofchurches.us/about/


Since its founding in 1950, the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA has been a leading force for ecumenical cooperation among Christians in the United States. The 37 NCC member communions — from a wide spectrum of Protestant, Anglican, Orthodox, Evangelical, historic African American and Living Peace churches — include 45 million persons in more than 100,000 local congregations in communities across the nation.

http://www.reformed-theology.org/html/issue07/apostasy.htm


During the meeting of this group's General Assembly at San Diego in February of 1968, a presentation titled "NCC Ministries and the Communist World" revealed that in 1967 over $1,584,000 had been given to the Communist Government of Poland through an N.C.C. on-going ministry called Church World Service. Although the aid was received in the name of the Polish Ecumenical Council, it was administered by the Communists for their own purposes. During the period from 1952 until 1967, over $40 million worth of food, clothing, and other material was give by the N.C.C.'s Church World Service to the Communist Government of Yugoslavia. Even stranger was an admission in this N.C.C. report that the National Council was operating a "refugee program" which picked up the tab for relocating Brazilian Communists in Mexico.To top it off, in 1968 the same U.S. Government which prohibits prayer in our schools donated $5 million to the National Council of Churches through something called "(Ocean Freight Refunds." In fact, in its 1960 triennial report, the N.C.C. lists "Ocean Freight Refunds" from the federal government totaling more than $23 million for the period 1957 to 1960.
The recipient of this federal largesse is the same National Council of Churches whose 1968 General Assembly at San Diego demanded that America:
"Stop the bombing of North Vietnam as a prelude to seeking a negotiated peace"; "Avoid provocative military actions against Communist China in the knowledge that it has a legitimate interest in Asia"; "Press for the admission of the Peking government to the United Nations"; "Create conditions for cooperation between the United States and the Communist countries of Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union and Cuba"; "Recognize the government of Cuba and acknowledge the existence of the East German Republic"; and, "Remove restrictions on imports from Communist countries and on cultural exchanges between the U.S. and the Soviet Union."

[jimnyc]

1) Don't bet your last nickel on that one!

2) The Members of the National Council of Churches with a claimed membership of 45 million can be expected to be first in line.

http://nationalcouncilofchurches.us/about/



http://www.reformed-theology.org/html/issue07/apostasy.htm

That's their right, of course, and I'm glad ahead of time that it's not anything I'm involved in. Regardless of denomination, I know that if a church I attended started with the gay marriage, I'll be moving along. That's the beauty, all of these folks can KEEP changing and redefining, but they can't force acceptance and approval.

[gabosaurus]

Private businesses can refuse service to anyone. They don't need a reason.
I have no objections to churches refusing to marry gays or lesbians. I don't understand why, with all the places you can get married, why gay/lesbians couples would want to get married in a church that opposes their beliefs.
I got married in a church. My sister got married in a civil ceremony, because she isn't religious.

What I object to is people refusing to follow the law. I don't like that people can smoke in public places, but it isn't prohibited by law. Same with guns. If I worked at a sporting goods store, I couldn't refuse to sell you guns or ammo because I don't believe in it.
If you work for a place that issues marriage licenses, you have to issue licenses to gays and lesbians. If you can't follow the law, go work someplace else.

[Abbey Marie]

1) Don't bet your last nickel on that one!

2) The Members of the National Council of Churches with a claimed membership of 45 million can be expected to be first in line.

http://nationalcouncilofchurches.us/about/



http://www.reformed-theology.org/html/issue07/apostasy.htm

Exactly why we prefer Bible-teaching non-denominational churches. The main line denominations (think Methodist, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, etc.) have by and large been going liberal for quite a while now. Of course, any church can go astray; you have to check them out.

As to Jim's point, I hope the Catholic church stays strong. The current Pope seems pretty liberal to me, but hopefully his hands are somewhat tied by church tradition.

[tailfins]

Exactly why we prefer Bible-teaching non-denominational churches. The main line denominations (think Methodist, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, etc.) have by and large been going liberal for quite a while now. Of course, any church can go astray; you have to check them out.

As to Jim's point, I hope the Catholic church stays strong. The current Pope seems pretty liberal to me, but hopefully his hands are somewhat tied by church tradition.

What wrong with hard-core Fundamental Baptists? I don't know of any KJV-only Baptists even considering giving any kind of status to gays. Even divorced men are not allowed to be deacons nor church leaders. You may have heard of the term Primitive Baptist.

[jimnyc]

It is 100% incorrect to state "Private businesses can refuse service to anyone. They don't need a reason."

Look at a bakery that was recently fined for refusing to bake a gay cake. And the couple who recently lost a court case for refusing to marry a gay couple on their property. Both private businesses. Precedent has now been set that if a private business refuses service to gay folks, they can be charged and fined for doing so.

And this is EXACTLY why there is a bill in the House currently to protect folks from bullshit discrimination claims.

[Gunny]

There is a difference between our country and many others.
In our country, people are free to be who they are and believe what they want.
In countries that don't allow dissent, anyone who steps out of line disappears.

I am a Christian, but I recognize that not everyone is. Our country guarantees freedom of and from religion.
There are some who believe that, because they oppose homosexuality, they can ignore the law.
What if I decided that, because of my religious beliefs, I am opposed to guns. (Thou Shalt Not Kill and all that) Can I start refusing service to anyone who owns a gun?

Wrong. You're free to believe what the left allows you to in this country. That makes us no different than any other dumb ass country.

You should be allowed to refuse service to anyone you don't want to serve. THAT is freedom.

[Abbey Marie]

What wrong with hard-core Fundamental Baptists? I don't know of any KJV-only Baptists even considering giving any kind of status to gays. Even divorced men are not allowed to be deacons nor church leaders. You may have heard of the term Primitive Baptist.

Perhaps you noticed I never said anything about Baptists? We currently attend a Baptist church.

[Max R.]

Yeah, I mean, to start with, marriage has only been primarily about love for like the last 100 years or so. Then of course, you have the thousands of years polygamy has been around, and is still practiced in parts of the world, so the whole "It's been one man and one woman" thing is actually the bastardization of the word's meaning.
Normally men and women do pair off, but as you pointed out, there are many other traditions such as polygamous marriages. We even had them in this country.

[Noir]

Any church that still believes in the traditional marriage, and that follows scripture, and follows Jesus. Personally, I go by the Catholic church myself, and I certainly don't expect them to start allowing gay marriage within their churches anytime soon. If other denominations start to, that's certainly their choice to make. I can't imagine too many churches out there though having congregations out there that are going to fully be on board. And who decides which churches are following scripture?

[stevecanuck]

Gay marriage will NOT destroy Western society.
Gay marriage will NEVER change hetero marriages.
Gay marriage is NOT the end of the friggin world.

With all the real problems that exist, especially the resurgence of Islam, spending more than 2 seconds worrying about gays getting married is 2 seconds wasted.

[jimnyc]

And who decides which churches are following scripture?

Well, with the Catholic church that is easy, as they will all answer above them. As for other churches, I'm not the best to ask, as I don't pretend to speak for denominations I wasn't a part of. Most do have national authorities they answer to, and major decisions as such will be left to them. Then after that you will be left with much smaller churches that answer solely to themselves.

There's not going to be an investigative committee. Either they decided to allow such marriages or they do not. I suspect the overwhelming majority will not. Those that choose to do so will worry about their own parishioners, I suppose. Many will look to the pope, who is barely even thinking about civil unions, let alone gay marriage at this point.

I can also say, any church that follows the word of Christ, and starts performing and accepting gay marriage, is not following the word of Christ. That, and they would be guaranteed to lose parishioners.

[Gunny]

Gay marriage will NOT destroy Western society.
Gay marriage will NEVER change hetero marriages.
Gay marriage is NOT the end of the friggin world.

With all the real problems that exist, especially the resurgence of Islam, spending more than 2 seconds worrying about gays getting married is 2 seconds wasted.

It's destroyed your mind. Gay are the end of empires. Let's start with Greeks and Romans and work our way to Egypt.

Want to try again, leftwingnut? Try loading your firearm this time.

[stevecanuck]

It's destroyed your mind. Gay are the end of empires. Let's start with Greeks and Romans and work our way to Egypt.

Want to try again, leftwingnut? Try loading your firearm this time.

It's destroyed my mind? Well, I guess it's all over for me. Goodbye cruel world. I'm off to the nearest bridge.

[Abbey Marie]

Gay marriage will NOT destroy Western society.
Gay marriage will NEVER change hetero marriages.
Gay marriage is NOT the end of the friggin world.

With all the real problems that exist, especially the resurgence of Islam, spending more than 2 seconds worrying about gays getting married is 2 seconds wasted.


Where have you been? We've been waiting so long for the guy who knows everything. Finally!

[Max R.]

It's destroyed your mind. Gay are the end of empires. Let's start with Greeks and Romans and work our way to Egypt.

Want to try again, leftwingnut? Try loading your firearm this time.

It wasn't the gays who destroyed the Greeks, the Romans nor the Egyptians. It was the Romans who destroyed the other two then, at least the Western half, imploded upon itself for multiple reasons including becoming an Empire instead of a Republic. Dictatorships never last.

[Max R.]

Where have you been? We've been waiting so long for the guy who knows everything. Finally!
LOL. Funny, but he's right. Mormons have multiple wives, cults with David Koresh-like Jesus figures banging all the women and gays getting married don't affect my life. I fail to see how they are affecting the lives of others.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

LOL. Funny, but he's right. Mormons have multiple wives, cults with David Koresh-like Jesus figures banging all the women and gays getting married don't affect my life. I fail to see how they are affecting the lives of others.




I fail to see how they are affecting the lives of others.
Try moral decay, perversity and societal rot. After that consider militant gays agenda, and hedonism, etc.
Next consider the ramifications of --anything goes-- in sex..
Traditional family VALUES AS KNOWN AND PRACTICED in this nation for over 200 years had great value and strength, UNITY AND COHESIVENESS.
You know, little things like that...... -Tyr

[Perianne]

Where have you been? We've been waiting so long for the guy who knows everything. Finally!

I don't count? Or is it I don't count because I am a girl? :)

[aboutime]

And who decides which churches are following scripture?


Simple answer, for a simple question. Anyone who follows their religious beliefs, and has faith. It's nobody else's business WHO decides what IS, or ISN'T believable by YOU.

The world is full of thousands of different religious beliefs. Are you the sole human who decides?

[Abbey Marie]

LOL. Funny, but he's right. Mormons have multiple wives, cults with David Koresh-like Jesus figures banging all the women and gays getting married don't affect my life. I fail to see how they are affecting the lives of others.

1. You really don't know how it will affect our society until it's too late, and

2. Using "it doesn't affect the lives of others" as a barometer, does not work if you follow that sentiment fully. A person beating their child doesn't affect your life. Nor does a man who rapes women. (Unless he chooses your wife or daughter, I suppose). The list could go on and on.

[Abbey Marie]

I don't count? Or is it I don't count because I am a girl? :)

Well, heck Perianne. I must have missed those posts where you too told us exactly what is and isn't truth. My bad!

[gabosaurus]

Try moral decay, perversity and societal rot. After that consider militant gays agenda, and hedonism, etc.
Next consider the ramifications of --anything goes-- in sex..
Traditional family VALUES AS KNOWN AND PRACTICED in this nation for over 200 years had great value and strength, UNITY AND COHESIVENESS.
You know, little things like that...... -Tyr

This is why so many of our founding fathers had mistresses. And a bundle of kinky sexual habits.

[fj1200]

We currently attend a Baptist church.

Cool. Me too.

[fj1200]

1. You really don't know how it will affect our society until it's too late, and

So by that logic you don't really know how it will affect our society either.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

This is why so many of our founding fathers had mistresses. And a bundle of kinky sexual habits.

All humans have weaknesses my friend. That does not negate from truth or moral principles cited by them or by anybody else.
Procreation is programmed into us. Otherwise no survival of the species.
Culture/society demands those things be kept private, now where they doing such acts in public? NO.
If one is to be tossed on the trash heap for imperfection then nobody would make the grade except the One crucified and Risen from the Grave..-Tyr

[Abbey Marie]

So by that logic you don't really know how it will affect our society either.

Actually, logic dictates that you would be responding to Steve, as he's the one who is positive it won't affect society. I was responding to him.

Ooh, you wouldn't be singling out my posts, would you?

[fj1200]

Actually, logic dictates that you would be responding to Steve, as he's the one who is positive it won't affect society. I was responding to him.

Ooh, you wouldn't be singling out my posts, would you?

Not exactly as you're both making predictive statements based on internal beliefs.

And no. You don't seem too interested in actually discussing the issue. :)

[Abbey Marie]

Not exactly as you're both making predictive statements based on internal beliefs.

And no. You don't seem too interested in actually discussing the issue. :)


Kewl :)

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Actually, logic dictates that you would be responding to Steve, as he's the one who is positive it won't affect society. I was responding to him.

Ooh, you wouldn't be singling out my posts, would you?

Does a cat meow? ;)--Tyr

[Max R.]

Try moral decay, perversity and societal rot. After that consider militant gays agenda, and hedonism, etc.
Next consider the ramifications of --anything goes-- in sex..
Traditional family VALUES AS KNOWN AND PRACTICED in this nation for over 200 years had great value and strength, UNITY AND COHESIVENESS.
You know, little things like that...... -Tyr
"moral decay, perversity and societal rot" have been around in all cultures for all of written history. Are you saying that if approached often enough by gays, you'd turn gay? That you'd begin engaging in perverse, bacchanalian orgies?

The US is still Puritanical compared to Europe. Women sunbathe topless in many European nations, but it's forbidden here. Do you think women sunbathing topless will cause the US to implode?

[tailfins]

"moral decay, perversity and societal rot" have been around in all cultures for all of written history. Are you saying that if approached often enough by gays, you'd turn gay? That you'd begin engaging in perverse, bacchanalian orgies?

The US is still Puritanical compared to Europe. Women sunbathe topless in many European nations, but it's forbidden here. Do you think women sunbathing topless will cause the US to implode?

How much of God's judgement would you like our nation to suffer?

[Max R.]

Actually, logic dictates that you would be responding to Steve, as he's the one who is positive it won't affect society. I was responding to him.

Ooh, you wouldn't be singling out my posts, would you?
His post indicated gay marriage wouldn't destroy western society, change hetero marriages and not end the world. I agree it would not.

"Gay marriage will NOT destroy Western society.
Gay marriage will NEVER change hetero marriages.
Gay marriage is NOT the end of the friggin world."

[Max R.]

How much of God's judgement would you like our nation to suffer?
God is all loving and all merciful. I strongly doubt God would punish the innocent for the actions of the guilty.

[jimnyc]

I wonder what happened in Scandinavia after they approved of gay marriage? I wonder if it had any effect on marriage there?

[Abbey Marie]

His post indicated gay marriage wouldn't destroy western society, change hetero marriages and not end the world. I agree it would not.

"Gay marriage will NOT destroy Western society.
Gay marriage will NEVER change hetero marriages.
Gay marriage is NOT the end of the friggin world."

Your opinion (and his) duly noted.

Though not sure either of you realize it is just that- an opinion)

[Noir]

God is all loving and all merciful. I strongly doubt God would punish the innocent for the actions of the guilty.

This the same god that flooded the earth and whatnot, yeah?

[jimnyc]

The End of Marriage in Scandinavia: Is America Next?

Are we witnessing the end of marriage? In a fascinating study, researcher Stanley Kurtz of the Hoover Institution indicates that marriage is already dying in Scandinavia, and his evidence demands attention. In Sweden and Norway, a majority of children are now born out of wedlock. A full 60-percent of first-born children in Denmark have unmarried parents.

The background to Kurtz's research is the claim made by advocates of same-sex marriage that the legitimization of homosexual relationships poses no threat to the institution of marriage. Nonsense, responds Kurtz. "Same-sex marriage has locked in and reinforced an existing Scandinavian trend toward the separation of marriage and parenthood. The Nordic family pattern--including gay marriage--is spreading across Europe. And by looking closely at it we can answer the key empirical question underlying the gay marriage debate. Will same-sex marriage undermine the institution of marriage?" Kurtz is ready with an answer to his own question: "It already has."

Of course, the concept of gay marriage did not begin the process of family disillusion and the destruction of marriage in Scandinavia. Kurtz, whose report appears in the February 2 edition of The Weekly Standard, explains that the recognition of gay marriage has "widened the separation" between marriage and parenthood, further undermining the institution of marriage. "Instead of encouraging a society-wide return to marriage, Scandinavian gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable," he explains.

Just how bad is the situation in Scandinavia? A recent study published by Harvard University Press indicates that some young married couples in Scandinavian countries are reluctant even to admit that they are married. Since the cultural expectation is cohabitation, marriage has become something of an embarrassment for the minority of young couples who have formalized their relationship through either a secular contract or a sacred covenant. That represents a moral transformation of awesome importance, for it represents the reversal of millennia of moral wisdom.

Kurtz gets to the point quickly: "Scandinavian marriage is now so weak that statistics on marriage and divorce no longer mean what they used to." The fact is that divorce rates are in a precipitous decline in Scandinavian nations. Does that sound like good news? To the contrary--a couple must first get married before they can divorce. By definition, the end of marriage also means the end of divorce.

Throughout Scandinavia and much of Western Europe, marriage and parenthood are being separated in both concept and practice. Those who insist that marriage is a moral requirement for the bearing of children are considered odd and out of date.

For the last twenty years or more, the trend has been toward young couples cohabitating through the birth of their children and staying together for at least several years after the children are born. This is a marked distinction from the pattern in the United States, where unmarried parents tend to be alone rather than in any stable partnership with the other parent.

For this reason, divorce becomes a much less useful category for understanding the health of family life. As Kurtz reports, in Scandinavia "what counts is the out-of-wedlock birthrate, and the family disillusion rate." Family disillusion is the separation of birth parents after the birth of the child. "Because so many Scandinavians now rear children outside of marriage," Kurtz explains, "divorce rates are unreliable measures of family weakness. Instead we need to note the rate at which parents (married or not) split up."

Those statistics are further evidence of the breakdown of family life in Scandinavian countries. Without the moral, social, and legal obligations of marriage, couples are free to separate at will.

As a team of three respected Danish sociologists explained, "Marriage is no longer a precondition for settling a family--neither legally nor normatively.... What defines and makes the foundation of the Danish family can be said to have moved from marriage to parenthood." But, as a matter of social policy, parenthood without marriage simply does not produce the kind of stability necessary for the successful raising of children.

http://www.crosswalk.com/family/marriage/the-end-of-marriage-in-scandinavia-is-america-next-1245702.html?ps=0

[Max R.]

Your opinion (and his) duly noted.

Though not sure either of you realize it is just that- an opinion)
Of course it's an opinion, just like those whose opinion is that gay marriage will cause God to destroy the US like Sodom and Gomorrah or that it will cause the US to collapse.

[tailfins]

This the same god that flooded the earth and whatnot, yeah?

Excellent reply, but for a different reason, I'm sure.

[Max R.]

This the same god that flooded the earth and whatnot, yeah?

and then gave us rainbows? yeah, if you accept the OT as literal truth. Note the irony of rainbows to this conversation. LOL

[fj1200]

I wonder what happened in Scandinavia after they approved of gay marriage? I wonder if it had any effect on marriage there?

There are gay Scandinavians?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpzlFd4p3sM

:eek:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

God is all loving and all merciful. I strongly doubt God would punish the innocent for the actions of the guilty.
All ships rise on incoming tide and fall on the receding tide..
We have brains and God expects us to use them not just lay there and say God, perform a miracle to exempt me and mine while I ignore this evil and play along with it to stay here.
We are to oppose evil not find a way to justify ignoring it my friend...
You are welcomed to disagree as is your right but Scriptures firmly support that point IMHO.-Tyr

[jimnyc]

There are gay Scandinavians?[/video]

:eek:

See that, fuckers are everywhere! :poke:

I'll bet there are gay people in Georgia too, you dirty bastard!! :lol:

[Max R.]

All ships rise on incoming tide and fall on the receding tide..
We have brains and God expects us to use them not just lay there and say God, perform a miracle to exempt me and mine while I ignore this evil and play along with it to stay here.
We are to oppose evil not find a way to justify ignoring it my friend...
You are welcomed to disagree as is your right but Scriptures firmly support that point IMHO.-Tyr

Like this scripture?
Matthew 7:1-3King James Version (KJV)7 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?




Matthew 22:36-40New International Version (NIV)36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2022:36-40#fen-NIV-23910a)] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment.39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ [B]40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

[Abbey Marie]

Of course it's an opinion, just like those whose opinion is that gay marriage will cause God to destroy the US like Sodom and Gomorrah or that it will cause the US to collapse.

Yes. But if you re-read Steve's post (and yours in agreeing with him), it is expressed as a certitude.

[Max R.]

Yes. But if you re-read Steve's post (and yours in agreeing with him), it is expressed as a certitude.
Like the ones saying gay marriage will destroy straight marriages? Yes it's an opinion expressing certitude.

[jimnyc]

Like the ones saying gay marriage will destroy straight marriages? Yes it's an opinion expressing certitude.

Or where it has changed marriages, as I posted, in other places.

[Noir]

and then gave us rainbows? yeah, if you accept the OT as literal truth. Note the irony of rainbows to this conversation. LOL

Its hard to keep track of which christians believe which stories in their holy book actually happened.

If you're happy to ignore the parts of the book where your god 'punishes innocent people for the sins of the wicked' then its easy to arrive at a 'god wouldn't punish innocents for the sins of the wicked' conclusion...but you must understand how that looks.

[jimnyc]

Its hard to keep track of which christians believe which stories in their holy book actually happened.

If you're happy to ignore the parts of the book where your god 'punishes innocent people for the sins of the wicked' then its easy to arrive at a 'god wouldn't punish innocents for the sins of the wicked' conclusion...but you must understand how that looks.

Why in the world would someone want to keep track or be so concerned about another persons beliefs?

[Kathianne]

Why in the world would someone want to keep track or be so concerned about another persons beliefs?
So that you may choose to become a happy, atheistic, vegan like him. ;)

[Noir]

Why in the world would someone want to keep track or be so concerned about another persons beliefs?

It helps with discussion of said topics.

[Noir]

So that you may choose to become a happy, atheistic, vegan like him. ;)

Hey, who told you i was happy!? ;)

[fj1200]

The End of Marriage in Scandinavia: Is America Next?

I don't think the stats say what he thinks they say. Plus it's 11 years old. Time for an update.


See that, fuckers are everywhere! :poke:

I'll bet there are gay people in Georgia too, you dirty bastard!! :lol:

I can't swing a dead cat...

:eek:

[Max R.]

Its hard to keep track of which christians believe which stories in their holy book actually happened.

If you're happy to ignore the parts of the book where your god 'punishes innocent people for the sins of the wicked' then its easy to arrive at a 'god wouldn't punish innocents for the sins of the wicked' conclusion...but you must understand how that looks.
You're 19 IIRC. Using arguments you learned in high school won't take you very far in life, kid. The same goes for your excuses.

A mature, educated adult recognizes that there are over 30,000 different denominations of Christianity and over 2 billion Christians. Only an idiot or the truly insane thinks they can keep track of them all.

[Noir]

You're 19 IIRC. Using arguments you learned in high school won't take you very far in life, kid. The same goes for your excuses. A mature, educated adult recognizes that there are over 30,000 different denominations of Christianity and over 2 billion Christians. Only an idiot or the truly insane thinks they can keep track of them all.

You recall incorrectly, i am 25.

Quite how you read what i said as 'i want to keep track of the beliefs of every living Christian' is odd - but to clarify if i must - my comments relate only to those who post here for discussion.

Now, if I may delve, is it only stories in the OT you consider non-literal? Or NT stories too, and by what standard is the distinction made? (Ie personal, or what your church teaches etc) hopefully this isn't going too of topic before bending back on topic.

[aboutime]

If you're happy to ignore the parts of the book where your god 'punishes innocent people for the sins of the wicked' then its easy to arrive at a 'god wouldn't punish innocents for the sins of the wicked' conclusion...but you must understand how that looks.[/QUOTE]

Noir. Obviously. Being where you are, and your age has much to do with how EXPERT you think you are, as compared to our 25 year olds here in the USA, who KNOW EVERYTHING like you do. Of course. Your expertise comes from someone never bothering to honestly tell you...you aren't always right about everything merely because YOU think so.
Your attitudes on nearly every topic here, usually demonstrate your unwillingness to tolerate almost anything, anyone else may bring here. Since..YOU ARE CONVINCED....only you have all the answers.
Fun thing is. Someday. Someone will come face to face with you, and the TRUTH will destroy you.

[Noir]

Noir. Obviously. Being where you are, and your age has much to do with how EXPERT you think you are, as compared to our 25 year olds here in the USA, who KNOW EVERYTHING like you do. Of course. Your expertise comes from someone never bothering to honestly tell you...you aren't always right about everything merely because YOU think so. Your attitudes on nearly every topic here, usually demonstrate your unwillingness to tolerate almost anything, anyone else may bring here. Since..YOU ARE CONVINCED....only you have all the answers. Fun thing is. Someday. Someone will come face to face with you, and the TRUTH will destroy you.

I like how every now and then someone on here thinks its relevant to say 'you don't know everything' etc, as if i ever said i did.

The point of a forum is for people with differing views to discuss and explore them, though very rarely do people actually change their views, but it certainly allows you to look at your own thoughts from angles you yourself may not have considered.

I do wonder what 'answers' you have that I could convince you that you are wrong about...

[jimnyc]

I like how every now and then someone on here thinks its relevant to say 'you don't know everything' etc, as if i ever said i did.

I do :) (I think Perianne said she does too) :)

[aboutime]

I like how every now and then someone on here thinks its relevant to say 'you don't know everything' etc, as if i ever said i did. The point of a forum is for people with differing views to discuss and explore them, though very rarely do people actually change their views, but it certainly allows you to look at your own thoughts from angles you yourself may not have considered. I do wonder what 'answers' you have that I could convince you that you are wrong about... Thank you Noir. Merely by showing us how defensive my statement made you feel, and react. Proves my point. No need for you to figure anything out about what I might be wrong about. As many of the previous posts have shown. You decided long ago..even as you claim this is a forum (excuse), that whenever YOU disagree with any of us. It is because you are convinced YOU are right. Nobody is perfect, as the old saying goes. And nobody knows everything...unless we are talking to you, or other young people like you, and, because YOU THINK you know better than everyone else. You are convinced so.No argument needed. Just think about it.

[Noir]

Thank you Noir. Merely by showing us how defensive my statement made you feel, and react. Proves my point. No need for you to figure anything out about what I might be wrong about. As many of the previous posts have shown. You decided long ago..even as you claim this is a forum (excuse), that whenever YOU disagree with any of us. It is because you are convinced YOU are right. Nobody is perfect, as the old saying goes. And nobody knows everything...unless we are talking to you, or other young people like you, and, because YOU THINK you know better than everyone else. You are convinced so.No argument needed. Just think about it.

I find it difficult to believe i could have posted anything that you feel would not have 'proved your point' because, ironically, your mind was already made up on this exchange, to the point were simply pointing out this is a forum is a 'claim' and an 'excuse'...

I do have opinions on most things, true, and many of those opinions differ to other who post here, but for you to confuse my opinion with a stated fact reflects a mistake on your part.

In any case - this is derailing the thread and so i won't be replying to any further posts in this thread from you unless they relate back to the topic (:

[Gunny]

Like the ones saying gay marriage will destroy straight marriages? Yes it's an opinion expressing certitude.

Biology says "NO".

[Max R.]

Biology says "NO".
Biology says "No", gay marriage won't destroy straight marriage? Agreed. The percentage of gays throughout history has been fairly consistent at about 2% of the population. Oddly enough, about the same as Atheists.

[jimnyc]

Biology says "No", gay marriage won't destroy straight marriage? Agreed. The percentage of gays throughout history has been fairly consistent at about 2% of the population. Oddly enough, about the same as Atheists.

Are you saying that perhaps the atheists are actually secretly the homosexuals? :laugh: :poke:

[Abbey Marie]

Biology says "No", gay marriage won't destroy straight marriage? Agreed. The percentage of gays throughout history has been fairly consistent at about 2% of the population. Oddly enough, about the same as Atheists.

Please elaborate on this. I think it's probably fascinating.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Please elaborate on this. I think it's probably fascinating.

I think it must be true because an old and wizened sage once said, "At any given time in mankind's history at least 4% of the world's population has been batshit crazy"!!!--Tyr

[Max R.]

Please elaborate on this. I think it's probably fascinating.
By Atheism, I mean those that strictly believe "when your dead, you're dead". That there is nothing beyond the physical and that we're all meat computers programmed by chemical and electrical reactions. Some people claim to be atheists, but are still spiritual such as Pantheists or some forms of Buddhism.

That said, it makes some Atheist surveys higher than others. Some studies lump atheists, agnostics and the "religiously unaffiliated" all into the same pool. My studies of the subject indicate pure "when you're dead, you're dead" Atheists number about 2%.


Note the range of years here. I wonder about the methodology and willingness of older generations to be honest about religious beliefs vs. those who are, indeed, speaking completely honestly.
http://www.britannica.com/topic/religion-Year-In-Review-2007

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2122.html


http://redcresearch.ie/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/RED-C-press-release-Religion-and-Atheism-25-7-12.pdf
59% of the world said that they think of themselves as religiousperson, 23% think of themselves as not religious whereas 13% thinkof themselves as convinced atheists.

*(I've yet to find a clear standard definition of "convinced atheist" as opposed to any other type of atheist)


http://www.pewforum.org/2012/12/18/global-religious-landscape-unaffiliated/

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/
http://www.pewforum.org/files/2015/05/PR_15.05.12_RLS-00.png