Adventure Game Studio

San Francisco (my future home and all that) has been in the news a lot lately. In case you're dumb, here's why; the Mayor of San Francisco, Gavin Newsom, has defied the state law against Gay Marriages, and has allowed officials to hand out over 2,800 marriage licenses to gay couples in the past 10 days. San Francisco plans to take California to court on the grounds that the banning of Gay Marriages is unconstitutional.

To quote Arnie:

Quote"In San Francisco it is license for marriage of same sex. Maybe the next thing is another city that hands out licenses for assault weapons and someone else hands out licenses for selling drugs, I mean you can't do that,"

What the hell? First, Gay Marriages. Next, Machine Guns. Right. Maybe he means that a law is a law and shouldn't be broken. But to compare Marriage Licenses to Gun Licenses is at the very least, stupid.

It's not just the symbolism of marriage that Gay people are being denied; there are certain tax reductions and insurance benefits that only married couples can obtain.

So it may not be 'christian'. Does it not say in the bible to "Live according to the Sign of the Times"?

President Bush 'the monkey' Jr has called for a federal ban on Gay Marriages. That should not happen. The American Constitution says that people are entitled to live, to love, and to pursue happiness. Gays are pursuing happiness and love in their struggle to be equal members of society. It is unconstitutional to disallow this. They are entitled to right for their rights.

The American Constitution, and the bible itself, claims that all people are equal. But how can some people be more equal than others?

To the Christians that don't believe in gay marriages; consider that the bible instructs to live according to the sign of the times. Also consider that god made everybody equal, apparently, and it is not our place as mortals to judge others. It is not OUR decision whether a Gay Marriage is valid or not. All people are sinners according to Christian belief, and therefore Gay people are no more or less 'dirty' than the rest of us.

Of course, I'm agnostic. So my belief is based soley in human rights.

What do you think?

Gay mariages? Have been legal here for the last 5 years or so, so whats all the fuss about?  ;)
I don't want to get married to a person of my sex, but if somebody does, wonderful. And I love all the gay guys for not stealing my girlfriends  ;D

Where do you live?

I'm talking about (most of?) America, because of the situation in San Francisco at the moment.

Massachusetts was going to start allowing gay marriages a while back, but I haven't been following the news... (yes, in my own state. I'm dumb.) Anyone know whatever happened to that?

and ya know.. seperation of church and state and all that...

trap: yes, mass will be allowing gay marrage soon, per the court order. there might be an admenmant that outlaws it in all the usa, so that might be moot tho.

I really dont know what to think about gay marrage. my religion forbids homosexuality, and I know its a sin....but so is lying and stuff, and our politicians do that! what two consenting adults do in their house isnt really my bussines...and I do stuff that my religion considers a sin too sometimes, so who am I to judge? or rather, who is anybody to judge? certainly not the US goverment. I normally ally myself with the liberals, since the thought of me being on the same side as the conseritive radical chirstain right annoys the hell out of me.

that being said, I disagree with what SF is doing right now. if they have a beef with the law, fine, take it to the courts. I bet the 9th circurt, (based in SF) would rule in their favor. for the mayor to ignore the law however, isnt the right way to go about it. for the sake of law and order, the major, and the gay's lawyers, ought to express their greivences like anybody else.

I dont have a problem with civil unions...if 2 gay guys want to hitch up and live together, fine. aint my problem.  I dont really see the difference between that and actually being "married" are

I've come to the realization that people (especially in America) NEED stuff to pick fights over.  This is just another example.  [ramble ...]Now people are complaining about camera phones in locker rooms.  Like people haven't been takin' locker room pictures for YEARS!!!  It's just something else to complain about ...[/ramble]

Back on topic ...
I'm not a huge fan of gay marriages but that's only 'cause I'm not gay.  It just seems wrong to me, but I'm open minded enough to know that when you're in love you're in love and want to get married.  Love is human nature and blah blah blah ... and all that shit.

If two homosexuals want to get hitched, I say power to them!  Who, really, does it hurt?

[offtopic]Yufster - are you going to work for TechTV?  They're located in San Fran and it would be such (to me) a dream job![/offtopic]

People who are against homosexual marriage are akin to those who are against black people being allowed to use the same restroom as white people. They probably don't care so much that it's part of their religion, but rather tout that as a good excuse to ban it so they don't need to create a logical argument. If this fails, I guess they could try to ban atheist marriages or something, since they tell you to swear before god in the vows. I know they make you swear on a bible in court, which is outdated these days as well.

I think all your senators should come to a consensus and ban all marriages alltogether.
Futuristic fun!

I want to know when they are going to mkae the law that eautiful and hot women MUST walk around naked... for me, any other laws are pointless, but this would make everything better, except that maybe Rape would go up, which is very very bad... :-\

I just recently, (last night), got into a conversation with my roomate about this. Where I said that by banning gay mariage, the goverment is persecuting the gay community. He thought the word persecution was too strong for what was being done. I disagree. The word persecution means:

"To oppress or harass with ill-treatment, especially because of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or beliefs. "

-http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=persecute (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=persecute)

To me this is outrageous to call a country "free" and have in the constitution "Seperation of Church and State," and have a situation like this. Why is it, persecution? Because we are denying a people their right to something, we're saying because you're a women and your a man, you guys can have this cookie, but we won't serve anything to you two men/women.

My roomate then went to argue (mind you, he was just arguing to argue, and probably doesn't believe this, as he is liberal), that if we allowed gay marriage, why not allow a man to marry a dog? At first this kind of threw me off. If you say a person should be free to marry whomever they wish, and they wish to marry a dog, why shouldn't they be allowed to? Simply because a dog has no way of telling you that it would like to marry you, and isn't really aware of the lifelong "bond" that is marriage.

The thing that really bothers me about it, though, is it in no way effects me. I am not effected if two men in San Fransisco get married. If two men next door get married, I am not effected by it. Whether I'm offended or not (I'm not), it in no way makes my life better or worse. So why make a law that doesn't give a people a right given to everyone else?

-MillsJROSS

Why would anyone want to marry their dog in the first place?

That's a stupid argument.

You see, it's logical for a guy to marry another guy, or a woman to marry another woman -- both have the capacity to go to work, pay taxes, adopt, commute, and interact with other humans on an insightful and intelligent level.

A dog spends most of its days sleeping, licking its nads, and trying to fuck the next-door neighboor's on-heat poodle.

What I'm trying to say is this; human rights (such as marriage) don't apply to dogs, cause DOGS AREN'T HUMAN.

Meanwhile, gay people (despite what some bible-basher say) are.

So tell your roommate he's nuts for even coming up with that.

Quote from: DGMacphee on Mon 23/02/2004 06:20:43
A dog spends most of its days sleeping, licking its nads, and trying to fuck the next-door neighboor's on-heat poodle.

Hey man, don't knock it 'til you've tried it.

actually, my history teacher used the exact same arguement

Are you sure he wasn't talking about Henry VIII's little-known seventh "wife" ?

Perhaps the human and canine want to get married just to have legal interspecies sex.

Quote from: DGMacphee on Mon 23/02/2004 06:20:43
You see, it's logical for a guy to marry another guy, or a woman to marry another woman -- both have the capacity to go to work, pay taxes, adopt, commute, and interact with other humans on an insightful and intelligent level.

By this argument, you would be implying that it would NOT be logical that 80% of the people on IRC and the forums (especially IRC)  shoudl get married , as they fail to meet any of your criteria (capacity to go to work, pay taxes, adopt, commute, and interact with other humans on an insightful and intelligent level)  ;D

RE, that logic fails for two reasons: (1) It's easier to pass a law allowing legal sex with dogs, instead of marriage with dogs (as dogs can't apply for the rights that humans can) and (2) Wanting sex is a stupid reason for marrying a dog anyway.

SSH, you obviously didn't carefully read what I wrote, did you?  ;D

Quote from: DGMacphee on Mon 23/02/2004 16:51:28
SSH, you obviously didn't read what I wrote carefully, did you?  ;D

When everybody is being ironic, it can be difficult to have a meaningful discussion. So let's resort to dogma instead, wahey!!!

n00bs are teh spawn of satan and should not get married ... it was Adam and Eve, not Adam and PhilRoberts!

oh, hang on, we were talking about gay people. No, they shouldn't be allowed to marry dogs.

What? Are you saying that I'm not reading this thread properly?

*sigh*

I said:

Quoteboth have the capacity

In other words, the 80% you mentioned DO have the capacity to go to work, pay taxes, adopt, commute, and interact with other humans on an insightful and intelligent level.

Sure, they may not always do those things, but the capacity is still there just the same as any human beings.

What I was trying to say was: your joke doesn't work.

So.... p\/\/n3d!

Anyway, you are right though, this topics headed into silliness!

BACK TO GAY PEOPLE EVERYONE!

DG:


[16:23] <Howlongcannicks> there's a woman singing a tina turner song on tv ._.
[16:23] <m0ds> a tiny tuna song ._.
[16:24] <m0ds> and it goes something like this; flop flop paddle paddle squiggle swim squiggle paddle flop blub blub glub squiggle paddle loop the loop glub go left and up 45 degrees flop blub squiggle paddle
[16:24] <m0ds> and then it gets caught in a net, and grinded down into tuna and into my mouth
[16:25] <m0ds> in brine juice.
[16:25] <BOYD1981> m0ds, you aren't stoned, you're avalanched :)
[16:25] <m0ds> actually, im ridiculed

AND

<BOYD1981> yeh but it isn't a real measurement of lameness
<BOYD1981> things like that can't be measured
<BOYD1981> it's a bit of harmless banter not to be taken too seriously
<shbazjinkens> you're just saying that because you register as so lame
<OsUltimo> bluecup nickometer OsUltimo
<@BlueCup> 'OsUltimo' is 0% lame, OsUltimo
<OsUltimo> yeh
<BOYD1981> no i'm not
<shbazjinkens> bluecup nickometer shbazjinkens
<@BlueCup> 'shbazjinkens' is 0% lame, shbazjinkens
<shbazjinkens> bluecup nickometer BOYD1981
<@BlueCup> 'BOYD1981' is 94.35% lame, shbazjinkens
<BOYD1981> anyway, it judges your name, not your personality
<BOYD1981> so ner
<shbazjinkens> yeah, if it judged your personality it would be much worse


I rest my case

Pffft, that has nothing to do with gay marriage or sex with dogs!

You rest nothing, m'boy!!!

i thought his joke was quite funny...

Yeah, you would.

Oh my. Fun with IRC quotes. Why haven't there been any actual homosexual people giving their opinion yet?

<Yufster> Vel, do you enjoy sports? Like Gay Sex with Sweaty Men kinda thing?
<Vel> yuf, yes

Vel?

(I suspect this quote is rigged, but who knows..)

That quote was not rigged, that IS exactly how it happened. Believe me, I was there.

Hate to spoil everyone's fun, which is why I'm only spoiling Yufster's fun; the 'Like Gay Sex with Sweaty Men kinda thing?' part was typed out in white, and Vel - FOOL as he is - didn't see it.

Meanwhile, back in San Francisco...

(http://www.thestar.com/images/thestar/img/030610_gay_marriage_200.jpg)

BEST PHRIDAY EVER!!!!11!!!!!one!!

Actually, it's Non-photoshop Monday.

EDIT: Also, I shit you not: that is an original photo, including the dog. (What were the chances, eh?)

Quote from: DGMacphee on Mon 23/02/2004 18:03:29
Actually, it's Non-photoshop Monday.

Who said anything about Photoshop? Who's not reading teh thread now, eh, eh, eh?

so STFU n00b pwned etc.

You can't even tell what day of the week it is!

OMG U SO N00B LOL STFU PWND BBQ!!!!

IMO, they should not be able to marry, because it is against the Christian religion. They can live toghether and all that though.

EDIT:

Damn, my witty exchange with DG was spoiled by the interjection of some REAL bigotry.



Vel, WTF has Christianity got to do with Californian state law?

Quote from: Vel on Mon 23/02/2004 18:12:22
IMO, they should not be able to marry, because it is against the Christian religion. They can live toghether and all that though.

indeed, what if they aren't christians? GASP SHOCK HORROR!!

and actually, i don't even think they can live together, unless they never touched each other in anyway whatsoever...

Well what if they aren't Christians, Vel?

As I recall, the bible isn't too kind about divorce, remarriage or premarital sex, either - should these be made illegal?

---Edit---

Curse you, Eric Colossal!

---Another Edit---

AND SSH, TOO!

Spoiler

Don't worry, SSH -- if it gets locked, it won't be our fault cause I think Vel's just opened a whole new can of worms up there.

[close]

You shouldn't use irony if you don't understand it, phlegmwad -- I mean, you're so lame if you can't understand the irony in my witty inter-textual reference to the Photoshop Phriday competition!

| h@><0r u OMG WTF STFU 1337 n00b gtg lololol GARDA!!!1!1!

SSH: Awww, you changed your post -- Now everyone will think I'm nuts for posting the hidden shit.

I think that marriage is a Christian thing. I mean, it is made in churches, no? At least thats how they do it here.
Edit: As far as I know, Muslim also prohibits homosexualism, but they can have as many wives as they can afford.

Yes.  Because Hindus, Jews, Muslims, atheists et cetera et cetera don't get married.

Ever.

They do, but they go to hell -- DAMN HEATHENS!!!

When it comes down to it, why should the state care whether two people have promised to stay together forever, anyway?

a) They end up not staying together most times anyway
b) In the UK at least there are hardly any tax advantages to being married. In fact, if my wife and I divorced our total income would go up... due to her qualifying for extra child tax credit, working tax credit, etc.

Marriage in a church is another thing, though. I don't think that anyone's going to start going to the mosque and demanding they change their rules to let gay people get married there, so I don't see why the church shouldn't be allowed to have its own rules for the behaviour of its members. There are plenty of other sexual minorities out there that the church doesn't approve of, so why should it have to approve of gay relationships? No-one accuses the Amish of oppressing electricity companies...

not to mention people got married before christ was even born

Well if they still'd like to get married, let them sign some papers, but imagine how would you feel if you were the abbot who marries the homosexual couple in a church or mosque.

I'd be cool about it.  :D

That's all their asking Vel, and so far that's all they've done. So we're in agreement.

there are some christians/muslims/zoroastrians that approve of gay marriage also...

We're not talking of evangelists or something - they have a PRAYER FOR MONEY(and i've heard this from an evangelist)! It is not as I am religious or something though, but that is well over the top.

...and the relevance of that rule for modern Christianity is questionable as well. Are you interested in outlawing shaving one's eyebrows in mourning, or shearing the firstborn of one's sheep? Do you want to force people to build railings around their roofs?

All who consider themselves true christains should follow the ten rules. Then again, I am an atheist and still follow all of them except one(believe in me/God/).

Yeah, the ten commandments said "Though shalt not dream about dick if thy are male, nor shalt thou enjoy listening to Liza Minelli or Kylie Minogue."

just a little comment, the 10 commandments don't mention homosexuality. so everyone wins!

Eric: what about not coveting thy neighbour's ass? My neighbour is a guy... QED

And Vel, you mean you don't download MP3s or abandonware or offer to get people hacks for Paintshop?

My mum held up a liquor store the other night and shot two people, but I still respect her!

I LOVE BIBLE CAMP!

QuoteAnd Vel, you mean you don't download MP3s or abandonware or offer to get people hacks for Paintshop?

That aint mentioned in the commandments...

It's not???

Holy crap! In that case, I'm stealing my sister's Malibu Stacey dolls!

Thou shalt not steal is, Vel.

"Thou shalt not steal" for the modern generation.

I think that covers it.

EDIT: Damn, you, AGA & DG. We will meet again, when you least expect it. Or when you most expect it. Haven't decided yet.

Shut up, you two! I almost had me a Malibu Stacey convertible!

Actually, internet piracy is more of a copyright infringement than stealing. But I think that's in the Ten Commandments too.

Today, I had a heated debate... no, no... I shouted at my Guidance Counsellor for his idiotic views on gay rights, which went something like this:

1) First they hand out gay marriage rights, then they hand out rights to own machine guns in the home... (hmm, where have I heard this one before..?)
2) They shouldn't be allowed adopt children because they'll get bullied for having gay parents. By the same logic, women should not be allowed wear skirts because they are just so asking to be raped. Blame the victim, I say! In fact, let's stop black people having children, because they'll only have to endure racist comments and such from racist morons!!! Let's stop athiests and english people from having children in Ireland. They'll only have to endure the torture of being called "Devil Worshipper!" and "English Bastard!" by mindless primary school children!

Huh.

He also said that the child of a gay couple would grow up to be gay, like the child of a violent parent would grow up violent. This was what caused me to get exasperated, because my father was extremely violent and abusive, and yet neither me nor my sisters have ever touched a hair off anybody elses head or been anything but polite and pleasant to other people. It showed how narrow minded he was. He argued that a child needs a good father and a good mother figure to grow up properly, and I pointed out not only that all of us grew up fine, but that plenty of single parents survive to raise wonderful children. And besides that, you're either gay or you're not. There's no, "Ah, well I think I'll try gayness today!". And on top of all that, so what? If people choose to be gay, fair play to them I say! If they're worried about a falling birthrate in America, perhaps they should make third level education more accessible, so people stop having small families soley because they cannot afford to send their children to Uni.

EDIT: The irony of me saying I got 'really, really fucking angry' and then claiming that I did not grow up to be an angry person, was too much. I edited it. I now sound calmer. Cooler. I'm cool. Smoooooth.

If the Americans are worried about a falling birthrate, then banning sex education in schools seems to usually help generate a few teenage parents...

Vel, just a clarification, since marriage is tied in with taxes and such it is state controlled. You must get a license at a courthouse in America to be married. Legally, you don't need a church or priest. Only a judge. My father's second marriage was by a judge in my Aunt's country home.

If anyone cares, last semester I changed my mind on my final paper and wrote a pro-gay marriage essay when I found that I was the only one who had chosen a different topic, and everyone else was writing an anti-gay marriage paper. I think it fairly well describes why eventually it will become legal and the arguments against it are fallible. Click here. (http://www.geocities.com/Trouble1201/essayFINAL.html)

I think the funniest thing that was said to me during peer reviews was a comment on how "controversial" my title was. I read that person's essay, and it repeatidly stated how gay people need to repent and change their ways or they will face the same eternal damnation as murderers and other sinners. How quaint.

Page not found :)

One of the arguments against Gay Marriage is that, once you let gay people marry, next it'll be pilligamy (sp) and suchlike, and society will break down. Sounds stupid to me, I'd like to know what you all think.

Also, a gem of stupidity from my teacher: "I mean, once they start letting gay people marry, what next? Bisexuals?"

I was so confused by that sentence I actually stared at him for like 30 seconds without blinking, trying to figure out if he was joking or not.

Okay, somebody has probably already commented on this, but I can't be bothered sifting through four pages of responses for it, so if I repeat, forgive me.

Btw, this is not a flame, but I am a very PASSIONATE christian, and I feel the need to clarify a few 'quotes' that have been 'quoted' from the Ags 'quotable' bible.

Firstly, LIVING FOR THE SIGN OF THE TIMES??? EXCUSE ME??!! (sorry - that probably sounded really amart-ass of me, but I am in a state of disbelief here) AHEM!! To quote Romans Chapter 13:

"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God."

If you want to interpret this as living for the times, then fine, but consider this:

"Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

How the hell do you just overlook a passage like THAT, and yet still claim to use the bible as a sort of 'foundation' for your argument?? The bible tells us to obey the laws, not to change them, or force them. And in case you're thinking "oh well that's all fine and dandy, they didn't have any problems back then," you're wrong. This was written under the rule of the infamouse Nero, who was NOT a very nice man...

Yes, it is true that God DOES love all men. He loves the fornicator, adulterer, idolater, and the homosexual. However, these people cannot practice these sins and inherit the kingdom of God, according to the scriptures. Hear God: "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals...shall inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Corinthians. I believe it's somewhere in chapter six) Some major denominations have now accepted practicing homosexuals in their pulpits. The major argumentation to promote such acceptance is that "we must be tolerant" and "we cannot say homosexuality is a sin." Well, I'd say this bible passage is a pretty CLEAR argument otherwise.

Fornicators, adulterers, idolaters and homosexuals can obtain forgiveness (I Cor. 6: 11). However, they must cease their practices.

Okay, I'm done for now, but I have more ammunition if anyone wants to read another of my infamous
thousand-paragrapg-long-post  :D :P

EDIT: This does not mean that I'm homophobic. On the contrary: I have a number of homosexual friends, but they all know my stance, and if they can accept me, then I will accept them (within prayer, of course :D)

EDIT EDIT: Don't take this as Bible-bashing, either. If you don't agree with me, that's fine. This post was written PURELY as rebuttal for the original thread that seemed to imply that the bible TOLD US to accept gay-ness

Yuf, try again, it's there and I don't know why you wouldn't be able to get it.

Peter, there are many contradictions in the Bible. It's easy to take quotes out of context or to find something really broad that might fit a lot of things already denounced. I agree with you, I think it's denounced more than it is ever tolerated in the Bible. But man, if you don't want to "sift through" the responces and you post that much stuff, it's like walking into a room and getting a vague idea of what people are talking about and then going into a five minute rhetoric. If you don't care what other people think enough to read their replies, they're going to take you a lot less seriously as well.

I knew it wouldn't be long till someone quoted the bible (and I just wanted an excuse to use this), but:

(http://sylpher.com/kafka/junk/tehshark.jpg)

Shabz; I HAVE read all the posts now, and I can certainly see where you are coming from. I didn't just skip to page four, mind. I just kind of skipped over all the posts people (like DG ;)) made. If you're wondering why, just check the post above.  :D

Contradicitons in the bible?? no. People CREAT and SEE contradictions in the bible, but they are not there. Believe me, I used to think the absolute same thing. I had 1000's of contradictions that I'd found, but when I got to the nitty-gritty, I saw that nothing had changed. The main thing people try to pose as contradiction is merely CHANGE. They say the old testament says one thing, and the new testament says another... well DUH!! The saviour of the world wasn't IN the old testament, so SOMETHING'S gotta change in between times!!!! :D

And I'm not being some ignorant snot-face, here. I went through a whole year of a 'gay-phase' (I can't believe I actually just typed that! :-[), and I AGREE that gay people don't CHOOSE to be gay. I would NEVER have chosen to be gay, given my religious background and my strict parents.

BUT, as I posted before, I gave in to the temptation without really knowing it, and it took a HELL OF A LOT OF GUTS to get out of it. And no, I wasn't brainwashed. My parents didn't know, the church pastor didn't know, in fact, NO ONE knew. NOT A SINGLE SOUL! so there was no external influence. It was something I took upon myself, and I'm truly greatful for it. That's why I stick with my gay friends today - I know what they're going through (only to an extent, of course), and I know they need all the 'suport' they can get. If I was to turn away now, it would be a bad rap against Christians everywhere...

I think that sometimes people take the bible too seriously, it's just a bunch of stories written long ago, translated into many languages (which is a real problem as contexts of things are now just way out), if some of it helps you then that's great, but it shouldn't be taken too seriously.

Imagine if a book by some famous people now was written, then in thousands of years it becomes folk law and some people took it too seriously. Could it become like the Bible? we might think it sounds stupid now. but that's exactly what we've done.

I would bet any money that Jesus was not really that well known (except in his local area) until after he died, and the legend grew from there. Just like artists in the past. The present ones won't be as famous until enough time passes before they stand out.


As for Marriage in any form (between humans) when it comes down to it, nothing physically changes between each party involved, it is all psychological, it may be proven in writing so it's all legal in the eyes of some beaurocrat, but it's all just a ceremony to celebrate 2 people that like each other a bit more than they like some others.

But who's to say that a person licensed to marry people wasn't crossing their fingers behind there back for the point that they are tricking everyone they are marrying in to beleiving it's real. There are pleanty of weirdo's out there so I'd say this type of shit goes on.

These people would have no idea and think their marriage was real, even if it wasn't legit. This is where it wouldn't matter anyway cause the papers are signed, and psychologically they would think they are married, so you can see the point of it being all psychological in the first place.

So it just seems silly that these laws still apply, but is there any way these people can get married in a place where it is legal, and then live in SF anyway?

I'd say just have an informal ceremony anyway, at least in your own mind you are married (which is the same as any other marriage) the difference being the legal things that come with it which to some people may not be important anyway.

It will happen eventually, when these radical christians finally realise that they are contradicting themselves by closing their minds off to other possibilities which is actually going against their religion. I bet you could also find something in the bible that says things are not set in stone. man, in that book you could rationalise anything to yourself, That's why a lot of people find comfort in it.

note: these are just my opinions

the bible is folk lore??

I respect your opinions, Timosity, however I vehemently disagree. I DO agree that wacko's exist who create cults based on nothing, and I cannot give a 100% PROOF that Christianity is not one of these, however I can give a STACKLOAD of 98% proofs if anyone cares to read them (?)

But then again, no one can prove 100% that ANYTHING religious or scientific exists. Hell, we all believe in the atom, but even THAT is still undergoing modification. It's all about faith.

And, I suppose, I have a lot of it.  8)

EDIT: I forgot to deal with part of your post, Tim. You said that maybe Jesus wasn't famous?? How 'bout the Mount of Beattitudes?? That has 'star struck' written all over it. Look into it if you don't know what I mean.

QuoteImagine if a book by some famous people now was written, then in thousands of years it becomes folk law and some people took it too seriously.

That could never happen!

(http://www.scientology-detroit.org/img/ron_bw.jpg)

(http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~susan/sf/films/starwars/jedi.jpg)

(http://www.cosplayuniverse.com/cosplay/manfaye/manfaye.jpg)

That is quite possibly THE funniest photo sequence I have ever seen  ;D

And you wanted to skip my posts!

Who's laughing now, eh? ME!! THAT'S WHO!! HAHAHAHA!!

ME?? Skip YOUR posts?? NEVER!!! Whatever I said before was a typo.... ;)

I don't know if I have the smarts to try and tackle a subject that has been debated as heavily as this one but I would like to throw in some thoughts..

First of all the bible contradicts itself. I don't have time at the moment to argue this point and I don't even know if I would want to if I did but it does. If you take the bible on a completely literal level (Which I personally think is BS because if you are supposed to take the bible 100% literally then god and jesus sure had a thing for farm animals (what with calling all his peeps sheep and lambs))

However if you are to take the Bible 100% literal, as I have been told you are supposed to by varrying reliogus.. folks. Then if the Bible in one section says 'Thou shalt not kill' and in another says 'Hey it is cool to kill' Then no matter what the nitty girtty.. no matter what the context.. the simple logic is contradicting. Now the only way out of that is to forfiet to the fact you are not supposed to take the Bible 100% literally because if you were supposed to that would just be scary.

Which on second thought I am going to leave it at that thought because this is a topic on homosexuality and not Bible contradictions. So lets not get off topic.

Now, to get it out in the blue.. I do not agree with homosexuality. Besides for religous reason (Which I will admit do play a part) I disagree for other psycological reasons which I am willing to discuss at a later time because I don't think it is appropriate here.

However.. To say that two people can't do something I disagree with without any solid evidence of it being any way wrong other then my personal views is not only wrong in itself. It is the same mentality (As someone pointed out all ready) that causes racism and other such nonsense. Which as well isn't only wrong it is flat out dangerous. History can prove that without any aid from my small little opinion.

My only concern is one I never considered before in the past but was brought up I think by Mills. Adoption. For me that is very difficult to break down because alot of peoples arguments in this very thread as well through-out the world is..

'It doesn't directly effect me what 2 consenting adults are doing so I don't really care/good for them/woohoo for cheeries.'

However, we are bringing a child into the equation. A child has no say at all if they would like to be raised in a homosexual home. 'What is the difference if the parents are the same sex as long as they love them right? ... Or, Hey sylpher that is the same as saying a white baby diesn't have a truely have a choice being raised in a ___(Insert non-white culture of your choosing)____ home?' Which I agree is a good point.

However I believe and know for a fact on a psycological level women/mothers connect on a level with a female baby/child different then a male can as well vice versa and crossed both paths.

'But Sylpher, what about single parents.. Mom runs off in the night and dad is forced to raise 2 daughters' I agree.. That sucks. Though in that case it is forced because mommy ran off with the mail man or perhaps passed away very young. Not because of anyones sexual preference.

So what do you do? Force homosexual couples to only adopt same sex babies? No.. that doesn't seem right. Not allow them to adopt at all? No.. not right either. Just let em do whatever who cares! Wee.

I don't know. The adoption subject is one I think I personally am gonna have to think about some more because I am a firm believer that a child needs a female and a male role model in child development.

I don't know.. again these are just my thoughts on the matter.

Yeah Peter, faith is the only thing that I agree upon cause that's what belief is all about.

I just have a hard time trusting in something written by people that I don't know, how do you know what was going through their minds, how do you know they were not trying to con people, how do you know that the English translation actually makes sense (once translated the contexts can't be derived from the english)

whoever wrote some of the quotes you mentioned about homosexuality being a sin, how do you know that person wasn't a homophobe, or maybe that person didn't know about the physical facts behind it (we still don't know now, but there is enough eveidence in this day and age that it isn't just a choice of lifestyle)

So I don't think a couple of books written long ago can stand up today, sure a lot of it can be used for good, but I'm sure if those people were around today, some of their opinions would be different.


There's just some things to think about, And I'm not trying to bash christianity, I just don't think the bible was intended to be used the way that it is.

QuoteYou said that maybe Jesus wasn't famous?? How 'bout the Mount of Beattitudes?? That has 'star struck' written all over it. Look into it if you don't know what I mean.

I know what you're saying, but what I mean is people all around the globe had no idea about it back then, what about people in Asia, The America's, Africa, Australia, and pleanty of other places. The idea of the Earth being a globe didn't exist, a lot of things weren't taken into account. It was just events that happened in a small part of the world, and has now been spread quite far.

anyway, I don't want a religious debate cause there are no winners, and they can go for longer than time itself. Everyone has their own ideas, & IMO everyone is right in what they decide cause in your own world, it's about what matters to you.


And DG, as much as it is a joke, that is exactly the type of thing that seems funny now, but in 2000 years after a certain part of the population are killed, and others that survive find these things in archives, they might start to believe these as facts from the past. And one thing for sure is the fact that the humor will be hard to understand over time, which is something we probably forget to look for in the bible.

I agree with Sylpher about it being best for a baby to have Male and Female role models as parents, (note the word best) but it isn't always possible, and I don't have a problem with any combination of parents, as long as they are treated well & have role models to cover where they lack.

of course parents can be bad people, but I think a balance of Male and Female helps, that can also be an Aunty or Uncle, Grandparent, Friend that helps fill these roles

Should women work and be independent, when it so clearly goes against the grain of the bible? Hmm? There is a lot of stuff the bible says that Christians 'overlook' because it is convenient. What about that one bible story, where the man goes to rape another man, and the owner of the house gives them his daughter and slave-woman in place of this man he barely knows. Nice story, that one. Oh, then he kills them for being impure.

If you're going to insist that being gay is against the bible, and that's the reason you would not allow marriages, perhaps you'd better disallow a lot of the stuff that happens in the modern world.

Quote from: Timosity on Tue 24/02/2004 05:17:07
And DG, as much as it is a joke, that is exactly the type of thing that seems funny now, but in 2000 years after a certain part of the population are killed, and others that survive find these things in archives, they might start to believe these as facts from the past. And one thing for sure is the fact that the humor will be hard to understand over time, which is something we probably forget to look for in the bible.

Hmmmm...


(http://www.sylpher.com/DGMacphee/Photoshop/MeAwesome.jpg)

BEHOLD! YOUR NEW SAVIOUR!

The 4 books which compose the new testament were choosen in a funny way: It was said that Constantin in his council told God "God, make us a signal to differenciate the good books than the apocriphs" and a white dove came from the sky and sellected John´s, Mark´s, Lucas´ and Mathew´s books.

Cool, but new documents reveal the thruth. It was very plausible that a group of experts sellected the most appealing books of all which related Christ´s life and put them up in a table in the place where the council was being cellebrated, while the apocriphs were lyng in the floor. Then, Constantin entered in the room and told "Good, if we have choosed badly, made us a signal!" (Of course,God did nothing, and Constantin sellected the most appealing books for the romans).

The new testament are a big lie. Christianism have been avoinded pages and pages of important information, like the one talking of the live or Mary, the brothers of Jesus, the marriage between Jesus and Mary of Magdala... It is specially shocking to see that the anciant good Mitra was born by inmaculate conception in a cave, died crossified and returned 3 days after, like Isis. Most of the "magical" or "supernatural" facts were by Jeusus are a compendium of ancient tales...

So... how can you still believe in Bible like a history book, or a guide??? The original documents of the biblical era paint Jesus as a normal man, married, with Brothers, a revolutionary leader, enormously charismatic and seen as a danger by Rome.... but the supernatural thingie was all invented half century after his dead.

Take the bible as a guide... It is cool, I still feel amazed when I read it and realise that Saint Paul invented such an appealing history, full of good feelings and a nice philosofy... But don´t take it as a book of history or laws...

Bible still consider mastubation a mortal sin, and we´re still here ( ;D)

So... IMO, if you´ve something to complain about wedding between people with the same sex, thing and argue, but don´t use an old fashioned 2,000 years old book, we just can´t argument against that...  :P

There was apparently some 50 gospels floating around in the 2nd century, including those purported to be written by Mary Magedelene and Judas.

Whilst there's other evidence that suggests that there was a split in the early church between Paul's followers and the disciples/christ's family [including Jacob and James, who mysteriously dissapeared from the catholic endorsed bible in the 1500's]/magdelene it would be interesting to see whether the stories in Paul's gospels, where the apostles are shown as total idiots, Magedelene as a prostitute and Judas a traitor, are political jabs against rival leaders of the emerging church who, unlike Paul, had the advantage of knowing Christ during the time of his teachings.

The scrolls of the Dead Sea?

Quote from: Las Naranjas on Tue 24/02/2004 08:28:35
There was apparently some 50 gospels floating around in the 2nd century, including those purported to be written by Mary Magedelene and Judas.

Whilst there's other evidence that suggests that there was a split in the early church between Paul's followers and the disciples/christ's family [including Jacob and James, who mysteriously dissapeared from the catholic endorsed bible in the 1500's]/magdelene it would be interesting to see whether the stories in Paul's gospels, where the apostles are shown as total idiots, Magedelene as a prostitute and Judas a traitor, are political jabs against rival leaders of the emerging church who, unlike Paul, had the advantage of knowing Christ during the time of his teachings.

Also - Paul was a wealthy Roman citizen, who had big plans for Christianity, but could only execute these plans if he carefully selected and rewrote passages in the scripture to make them "digestible" to the Roman public and leaders. In fact; Christianity (homophobia and all) as we know it today is based on Paul's version of it. Read some of the books by Michael Baigent and learn some interesting facts, kids ...  ;)

Oh yeah - and hurray for San Francisco indeed. It's a lovely city.

Okay - I'm trying to address 6 million topics here, so bare with me ;D.

Firstly, the bible IS meant to be taken literally. That does NOT, however, mean that you can't use metaphors and similes. Jesus says continually things along the line of: "I'm using metaphors because humans are dumb and don't know what I'm talking about." Which is a fair statement. When a man comes up to you and starts lecturing in your face, you're BOUND to be a bit dazed.

Secondly, the bible DOES NOT contradict itself. I swear by my life, it doesn't. Aside the big things that are beyond human comprehension like 'What is God, and why is he everywhere?', of course (I'm not saying they contradict, I'm just saying I don't know all the answers). You're "killing" example won't be discussed here because it doesn't really exist.

Timosity, I agree whole heartedly that this shouldn't become a debate. I'm probably only exacerbating the problem with my post, but I kinda feel obliged to correct some false claims.

To Indiana, you need to do some research before you start making claims like non-working women. You're only saying what you think, rather than what you know. What about people like Dorcas? (Bad name, I know) Indeed, Galations (a book in the bible for the non-bible-readers) claims: "there is neither male nor female". Of course, it has a context within the chapter, but it's too long to type up, so I won't. And this is a metaphor (meaning that yes, you still can take the bible literally) meaning that men and women SHOULD be allowed to do most jobs together. As for this rape, story, excuse me??!!! Post it, PLEASE!!! I would LOVE to read this story... maybe it's because you're typing in layman's talk that I don't know... I tend to talk a lot more 'biblical' about stories. Post it and let me explain it, my friend :D

Next, I say there WERE a dozen extra new testament books that could've been chosen. But they weren't. Because what's the point of printing 100 books when you can condense it into 27? It makes sense really... There's nothing DRAMATICALLY excluded in the left-out chapters... just random babble. As for translation errors, correct - there are HEAPS, and christian leaders have been debating them for YEARS, however it is only the finely attuned eye that picks them up. Like the difference between 'lord' and 'Lord' means the same no matter what, however there is a significance that can be seen.

The bible may be 2,000 years old, so I can see why you might not believe it, but theories like the big bang don't have time to accumulate age, because they are changing constantly. I'd much prefer to stick my faith in something that has stood the test of time... it's scary to see how relevant some of this bible stuff is today.

http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&passage=2+kings+2&version=NIV

God kills 22 children with she-bears (depending on the translation) In this link, look at 2 kings 2-23

It is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies.

- Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens)

The dead sea scrolls are older Farl. Most of these other gospels we only know about because of reference to them in other sources.

Whilst there is plenty of evidence to suggest a vast degree of manipulation in Paul's camp, it's still educated conjecture, valuable, but I'm not willing to make statements of fact, at least where faith is involved.

But one interesting contradiction that I'd like to ask Peter about is where one of the gospels places John the baptist in prison at the time Jesus was baptised.

Now, if we suppose that Paul's posse was diminishing the role of those close to Christ, this could be a prime example of this.

Moreover, this is a contradiction that isn't about something that is said to have come from the mouth of Christ or God, so it's not that tricky theologically. But it does seem to imply that the gospels, written as they are by men, and not God, can be flawed as well, since humaity is flawed.

In which case, we may be seperated from God by taking as his truth something that has come to us via flawed humanity.

I agree with Las and Miez... We´re not saying that the four books of the new testament are a compilation of all the information of the apocriphs gospels... we´re saying that they´re re-written to make them more suitable and appealing, that´s something completely different!

So... ask me this.

a)Crossification is a Roman punishment...
b)Jewish punishement was lapidation.
c)Romans were very respectful with collaboratiive religions, and the Jewish church was in that time, SO:

Why was Jesus crossified? If he was the enemy of the Jewish church, and he was no great enemy of the romans (Let´s remember that the Gospels say that Jesus told the Jews to obbey the payment of taxes to the Romans, and Pilatos was told to see no guilty in him) he should have been dilapidated...

Why crossified? because he was a revolutionary, enemy of the collaborationist Jewish church and the roman empire... the romans killed him.

But Paul changed it all, he changed the propaganda against the Romans and added supernatural stuff, therefore, Paul lied, maybe in A LOT of aspects, who knows? maybe in all...

So... How can you still believe in the Bible as a history book???

It's gotten a bit off-topic has it?  I see the gay marriage situation a bit more pragmatically.  We've got government and religion.  Government dictates how people in a certain location live.  It determines what they can and cannot do.  It gives certain privileges and enforces certain restrictions.  

What is marriage? More or less, the joining of two citizens financially and intimately.  The two are meant to be intimate with each other, live in the same place and share their finances, problems and the bits and pieces of experience that we call life.  This doesn't sound like an issue that needs to be handled by a religious institution or even our more "morally-upstanding" citizens.  A marriage can be performed by any justice of the peace (basically a title of judge, only not restricted to a particular precinct).  If churches want to deny gays a religious ceremony then I suppose they've got every right.  The KKK is more than welcome to turn down black people who wish to join its organization.

Why are people so emotional about this? (particularly on the conservative side) It's not like the US gives a damn about marriage. 68% will end in divorce.  Of the remaining 32%, 2/3 will have been married at least once previously.  In the military, the divorce rate is +10%.  More and more couples are signing pre-nup agreements, ensuring that their possessions remain theirs in case the marriage doesn't work out.  The youth of the US (on average) is more violent, more ignorant, less patient, and is much more likely to have come from a broken home.  What is it that "straight" people are doing so well? What makes us think gays couldn't do an adequate job themselves?  I'm kind of with Sylpher on this..  the adoption issue I would definately have to think about.  However, a male-female couple has to go through numerous interviews and evaluations in order to adopt a child.  If the gay couple does the same things and passes the tests, why assume they'll do a worse job of it?

If homosexuality is a choice, then this is more of a moral issue than anything.  If it's genetic (or even a fraction of homosexuals are) then any denial of equal rights constitues bigotry on our part.  The adoption issue aside, why not deny them driver's licenses as well?

Can I stress that I'm not declaring that Paul changed things, but there is a strong suggestion that it happened.

I'm approaching this as a historian, not a theologist, or a christian or an atheist.

OKay, again dealing with multiple posts at once:

Las, read John Chapter 3: After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptised. And John also was baptising in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptised. For John was not yet cast into prison

That seems....erm... pretty clear to me...

Farlander: This is why Jesus was crucified: Jesus challenged the Jews to find legitimate fault with him, but they failed (Jn. 8: 46). Paul wrote thus, "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him" (2 Cor. 5: 21). The crucifixion displays as no other event in history the depth of prejudice, moral and political corruption, and spiritual abandonment to which man is capable of sinking. It went to show that tradition didn't matter to the people. It was symbolism.

Shabz: This is a kind of difficult one, and (in case you were wondering) there were actually 42 (as opposed to 22) people killed. And they weren't children. The term 'small/youth' refers to their character, not their age.  This doesn't make the issue any different however. The answer is this: The people say "Go on up you baldhead" to Elisha, however it is not really an insult to him. It's to God. Elisha used to live under the mediterranean sun, in which it was necessary to shave your head to keep cool. This incident with the taunts happens 50 years later, in a different place where the sun is not as hot, and he is NOT bald. So the taunt is actually directed at his heritage, which was dedicated to the living of God. Therefore, God sends the bears to kill because these people were insulting God himself. There is another law of God that says you have to worship him and HIM ONLY. I'm not saying this is 100% justification for murder with regards to our perception of it, however God DOES say continually throughout the Bible that he will show his wrath on people who taunt his name. There are finer points for me to argue, if you care, but this is the general reason why.

To Yakspit: I do not believe that homosexuality is genetic. AT ALL. There has been so much debate over it, and so little resulting facts, that it suggests gay people are just looking for an excuse. But at the same time I do not believe that it's a conscious decision either. If you read my earlier post, where I explained MY struggles with homosexuality, you'll see what I mean. On the adoption issue, I'd have to think about it as well. Because I do not believe in a homosexual life-style, I cannot support it, but I DO believe that a lot of gay couples could raise a child better than 20% of the world's STRAIGHT population...

Quote from: Peter Thomas on Tue 24/02/2004 09:25:43
That does NOT, however, mean that you can't use metaphors and similes. Jesus says continually things along the line of: "I'm using metaphors because humans are dumb and don't know what I'm talking about."

How dare Jesus say that about me!

He's never going to play on my beach volleyball team again.

Besides, if humans are as dumb as Jesus thought, then why not speak clearly without faffing around with metaphors.

QuoteSecondly, the bible DOES NOT contradict itself. I swear by my life, it doesn't. Aside the big things that are beyond human comprehension like 'What is God, and why is he everywhere?', of course (I'm not saying they contradict, I'm just saying I don't know all the answers). You're "killing" example won't be discussed here because it doesn't really exist.

This was written by Walter Brueggemann, Christian Century (Jan. 3-10 2001, p.16):

'In Deuteronomy 24:1, moreover, Moses teaches that marriages broken in infidelity cannot be restored, even if both parties want to get back together. But in Jeremiah 3, in a shocking reversal given in a pathos-filled poem, God's own voice indicates a readiness to violate that Torah teaching for the sake of restored marriage to Israel. The old teaching is seen to be problematic even for God. The latter text shows God prepared to move beyond the old prohibition of Torah in order that the inherent evangelical claims of God's graciousness may be fully available even to a recalcitrant Israel.'

This is an example of a contradiction in the bible.

One book is saying, "You can't accept your wife back after divorce.'

The other is saying, "Yes, you can."

Not quite, DG. You are indeed correct that Deut. denounces divorce, quite clearly too. But Jeremiah does not ACCEPT it.

God says: "Return, faithless Israel... I will frown on you no longer, for I am merciful... I will not be angry forever, only acknowledge your guilt..."

This has NOTHING to do with God ACCEPTING or AGREEING to divorce/remarriage. Just showing that he won't be angry FOREVER because of it. The inferences made about 'coming back and I will accept you', is referring to God's merciful nature of loving people even when they do wrong. It's not about marriage.

EDIT: ALso, I explained why Jesus used metaphors. He used them BECAUSE we couldn't HACK it. It's like walking up to someone and saying "You know what? YOU'RE A BAD PERSON!!" They're not going to listen to you. But when you use METAPHORS, people begin to see things from ANOTHER point of view, and they realise what's really going on

You're wrong.

It is accepting it as long as you repent for the divorce.

According to the Jeremiah, if you divorce what you have done is wrong in the eyes of God.

But after you repent, you're still allowed back with your wife, according to the text.

God says he will not look on Israel with anger, and thus forgiven the sin of divorce.

If he didn't want them back together, he would have said, "You are not allowed back together" someplace within the text.

But that would go against reforming Israel.

I mean, it's common sense to allow a reunion of man and wife to reform you own state of worship, isn't it?

So, it does allow it.

EDIT: Regarding metaphors -- Bullshit! If someone has a problem with me, for example, they tell me straight what the matter is and I listen. They don't waste time with their stupid metaphor for whatever I've done wrong.

EDIT 2: By the way, while you're at it, can you refute all these contradictions too (I'd like a point-by-point analysis too please, with evidence): http://www.ffrf.org/lfif/?t=contra.txt

Erm.. I KINDA see where you're coming from, but it's very skewed. Verse 15 says: "Then I will give you shepherds after my own heart, who will lead you with knowledge and understanding". Some interpret this as marriage. It is not. The term 'shepherd' is used (widely thoughout the bible) to signify a loving LEADER, not a lover. So God is promising to provide a human network that will strengthen you, as opposed to providing a God-loving lover.

EDIT: YOu are right, DG. Jeremiah ACCEPTS IT!! But it never says anything about getting back together. Deut does not contradict this

EDITEDIT: Good for you, DG, if you can handle the truth. I mean that. But you can't deny it, a lot of people CAN'T. There is no point in Jesus talking plainly JUST for one or two people who can handle it, and leaving twenty others in the denying dark.

EDITEDITEDIT: I WILL do an analysis of some of the contradictions. Mainly because I'm stubborn and I'm passionate and I can be a smart-ass sometimes. But also because I want to genuinely show my beliefs. I won't do ALL of them because I'm lazy (not really - but there are only so many hours I can spend at a computer.) I will put them in a seperate post, however, to break things up a bit, if no one minds the double post.

But the very first few line says: "If a man divorces his wife and she goes from him and becomes another man's wife, will he return to her?"

That puts the entire Jeremiah 3 in context of returning to one's wife/husband.

Cool Peter Thomas, you´ve response why was Jesus crossified... But I didn´t ask that... My question is clear: Why was he crossified IN SPITE of lapidated?

It´s a totally different question.

DG - The first verse of Jeremiah is a QUESTION!! It's not saying it's OKAY, it's just posing a question for people to answer within themselves. The line: But you yourself have lived for many years as a prostitute, should be clear enough about that. There is absolutely NO verse that clearly defines it as 'getting back together is cool as a cucumber'.

Farlander: Jesus was crucified because the Jews were MAJORLY under the influence of the Romans. They didn't want Jesus having a Jewish murder, because they didn't want him to be known as a Jew. It was a denial of who he was, by giving him a roman crucifixion.

False: the Sanhedrin was not able to impose the Romans a punishment, and Jesus crucifixion was made by romans (judged in Pilatos temple, punished by whig by romans... even the inscription in the cross was latin, which, let´s remember, make mention that Jesus was the King of the jews).

How could the Sanhedrin agree with a dead penalty under the acussation of being "King of the Jews", if they wanted to pretend that Jesus was no Jew?

Accept it, if Jesus was the "enemy" of the Jew Church that the gospels claim, he would have been lapidated...

FARLANDER:: EDIT:: The sign, King of the Jews was irony. You think they believed it?? Yeah - completely. That's why they killed him; because they thought he was the rightful king. That doesn't make ANY sense.

Okay, DG, about that site.

The first couple are NOT biblical contradictions. It's just Paul being Paul. It is widely known that Paul spoke a lot of crap some of the time, and he was very passionate (like me) and he often said ANYTHING as long as it made him look good. This is acknowledged somewhere in the bible (can't remember where off the top of my head).

2 - Exodus 20 says "You shall not MURDER!!"" There is an EXPLICIT EXPLICIT EXPLICIT difference between murder and killing. Murder is the WILLFUL death. Killing is an act of duty, as in the bears that killed forty-two people earlier in my posts.

Actually, a LOT of the killing ones have been dealt with earlier. God killed those who SLANDERED his name. Which is not a contradiciton. He SAYS he will kill christian haters. But this is the muddle up between murder and kill again. It's common for people who have no clue about the bible to assume that they mean the same thing (not trying to make anyone out to be dumb here. It's just a fact)

As for lying: We should not tell lies. When the verses say: "God put a lying tongue in his mouth blah blah blah," it's just letting the reader know that he was a liar. God did not PHYSICALLY insert a tongue with a disposition to lying within his head. Because he was human, and God created all humans, it's just a reference to the fact that God has power over EVERYONE!! (note that this does not equate to control)

The stealing?? The first couple are not contradicitons!! It's just documenting what people did. It's like saying the law says cannabilism is illegal, but that guy in germany still ate a human. That doesn't make the law a contradiciton. It just means people don't FOLLOW the law. The last one is NOT stealing. God PUT the colt there for a purpose. None of this stealing business. He included the thing about "should a person ask you why" as a test of their faith. He wanted to know if they could really stand up for him, or whether they'd buckle.

The sabbath? First the John 5 issue: It says the jews wanted to kill him because he was 'working' on the sabbath. Jesus FIRST says: "My father is always at his work, and I too, am working." People conveniently forget that part. Jesus was preaching the gospel and performing miracles. That does not classify as 'work'. Jesus uses the term work in a sense of irony. Work is a 'bland' or 'non-proactive' activity, such as (believe it or not) collecting sticks. It's a bit much to thing about in TODAY'S society, but let's face it, these things did NOT happen in our society. Again the others don't CONTRADICT the bible. They simply state that people didn't FOLLOW the bible. Whoop-de-doo. Never heard THAT one before.....

The graven images?? What God commanded to be made was an ATONEMENT COVER!! nothing to do with idols, and he CERTAINLY didn't want them to be worshipped. I can't believe these are actually listed as contradictions... *sigh* I was expecting something I COULDN'T answer (yes, believe it or not, there are SOME things I don't know  ;))

EDITEDIT (other edit (for farlander) at top of page):

FURTHERMORE, the faith/works issue is soooooo wrong (I like to occassionaly insert a childish word here and there) . One is saved by Faith, NOT WORKS ALONE!! That does not mean the two don't work in conjuction. Because they DO!! If you are a true follower of God, you will ACT in his name, meaing you will do works!! That does NOT mean that if you do works, though, you will get to heaven. I guess the 'works' bit is sufficient, but not NECESSARY... that is kind of self explanatory IF YOU READ THE PASSAGE. (At this point I note that I'm sounding angry and impatient. I'm not. I'm just typing quickly to get through as many contradictions as I can. And I'm not going to spend the next half-hour retyping everything just to make it look nice, because then I WILL be impatient  :P ;))

Next: Should good works be seen?? The stuff concerning the Pharisees says "Do not do what they do"! WHY?!! BECAUSE THEY'RE DUMB!! They don't practice what they preach, and OBVIOUSLY God doesn't want his people preaching one thing and doing another. I'm seeing a pattern here. People just choose a verse and pose it as a contradiction, without reading the CONTEXT. And then they claim to be all the wiser for it...

As for salves: The exodus thing about "Own a slave for six years" is referring to the price to pay for THIEVERY!! Again, out of context, but not COMPLETELY without reason. This type of slavery is known as PENNANCE, and is different from typcial slavery which is what the site claims to associate it with. The stuff about Canan is a similie. It's not saying that one will ABSOLUTELY be a servant to the other. It means that one will be SUBSERVIANT (completely different meaning) to the other.

I will do more when I can... My bro wants to use the comp for the next couple of minutes. Don't post TOO much at me, or else I'll never be able to go to sleep

Do you still use the bible as a book of history? Cool, let’s play, I’ll use the Bible and the book of the law of the Jewish, the Misna.

Was Jesus judged by Jewish? I say no:

(Extract of a homework I did for my class of Philosophy, years ago…)

1) According to the Bible, Jesus was judged in Friday: Impossible:

a)   The Sanhedrin could not judge in Friday, the eve on the Sabbath, if it was judging cases that could finish in death penalty.
b)   The Sanhedrin was not able to judge the eve of Easter, according to Misna.

2) The sentence was not able to be said that very Friday; sentences involving death penalty had to be postponed one day.

3) The Bible claims that Caifas, who accused Jesus, was also its judge… Impossible, the Hebrew law forbidden that.

4) Messengers have to be sent everywhere to announce a death penalty, but this is not mentioned in the Bible.

5) If Jesus was accused of being a false prophet, he could have been judged by the 71 members of the big Sanhedrin, which were not in Jerusalem in Easter.

6) The 4th Order of the (chapter VII) of the Misna says that the Sanhedrin could dictate 4 kind of deaths penalties: Lapidating, strangle, burning, and throat cutting. If Jesus was accused of being false prophet, blasphemy, magician and Sabbath profanation, he could have been lapidated or strangled, never crucified.

In addition, many students say that in those times the Jewish council was not able to dictate death penalties.

Conclusion: Someone (Paul?) invented a Jewish trial for making it suitable for the roman population, while all the historical facts aim to a roman judgement.  It was clear that Paul could not export a Jewish religion to Rome if its most important figure was a person who fought against the Roman Empire.

-------

Believing in the good things that you can extract of the Bible is ok, but seeing it as a history book (IMO) not. Look…

I consider myself a good person, and I don´t need the example of a supernatural son of God, of the threat of burning in Hell. The only thing I have extracted of the Bible is that you must do that things that you believe are correct, which includes trusting in the power of the friendship and the love… What matters if that love is felt between to people with the same sex? I can´t really understand it…

Okay, new question.

(http://www.lalc.k12.ca.us/target/science/birds/tour/images/dinosaurs.jpg)

How do these guys fit into the bible?

You mean humans are that selfish they think it's all about them? no that can't be right.

Quick comment on the faith & works issue.  It's my understanding that according to the bible, good works are a side-effect or by-product of faith  (e.g. A man who's generous of heart is likely to give to others). Not contradiction but additional information: good works do not mean you have faith (e.g. A man who gives to others isn't always a generous person... modern example being a person/business who gives to charities merely for the tax-break).  Since it's said multiple times that you go to heaven because of your faith and not because of your actions, I really don't see why they would list this as a contradiction.  

The contradictions site was fairly interesting but I don't see why they bothered with their questions if they weren't going to do a little basic study.  Anyway, I don't distrust biblical text because of contradictions (perceived or otherwise), I distrust it because it's come from far too many sources (all of them human and therefore somewhat flawed). It speaks in metaphors and parables without distinguishing reality from fantasy.  It is subject to interpretation.  That is, a person could derive multiple meanings from the same sections.  Many of the basics are stated rather concretely but some varied aspects of the faith are described rather vaguely.  I also don't see how you (plural) can take things at face-value that are haphazardly translated from several different languages into an archaic dialect of English. If you read the NIV or equivalent, that only adds to the possible errors.  I'm not Christian but was raised to be (18 years).  Despite the fact that some things were taught in a very black & white manner (whether metaphor or not), I've always been doubtful that the bible was meant to be a word-for-word textbook.  I think it ought to be taken more as somebody teaching through a book of poetry.  The words aren't as important as the principles and the emotions they convey.  

Aside from the fact that we're entirely off-topic and into religious debate (again) we're also grasping at straws and nit-picking.  It's the internet for CJ's sake! If you want precise and serious debates, why not compose reports or talk to somebody in person? I think it's usually best to be a bit more generalized when dealing with forum posts (looking at the length of this one so far, I guess I'm being hypocritical  ::)).

Quote from: DGMacphee on Tue 24/02/2004 12:19:55
How do these guys fit into the bible?

Massive low-loss compression algorithms, dumbshit.  

Depending upon the sect, you'll probably be referred to Behemoth & Leviathan or to one of several other theories I posted about once-upon-a-thread.

Bible is enough boring when resuming 5,000 years of history... Imagine including the previous 6,000 milion years...

Revisited Genesis:

"And the fish, became amphibius, which became a lizard, which became a Dinosaur, which was buried in the land by a holy stone thrown by God to the Earth, which bones were found by Spielberg, a sionist who made films... and God said, lets Jurassic Park be made! And he realised that this was good!"

Quote from: YakSpit on Tue 24/02/2004 12:33:11
Massive low-loss compression algorithms, dumbshit.

Oh, Yakspit -- You and your witty play on words!

Why weren't you born a Marx Brother!?

Now write one of those algorithms to prove it, smartarsre!

Quote from: Farlander on Tue 24/02/2004 12:11:31
Do you still use the bible as a book of history? Cool, let’s play, I’ll use the Bible and the book of the law of the Jewish, the Misna.

Was Jesus judged by Jewish? I say no:

(Extract of a homework I did for my class of Philosophy, years ago…)
no point in me replicating that...

Conclusion: Someone (Paul?) invented a Jewish trial for making it suitable for the roman population, while all the historical facts aim to a roman judgement.  It was clear that Paul could not export a Jewish religion to Rome if its most important figure was a person who fought against the Roman Empire.

That's one conclusion. Another is that the enemies of Jesus were so desparate to get his bumped off that they burst through all normal procedure. Anyway, the bible mentions that Pilate tried Jesus, so what's with this supposed denial of Jesus beging tried my the romans?

http://www.giveshare.org/library/sanhedrin/index.html

Hello again, you heathens!

Last time I was offended at all the bad language you used, but this time you've gone too far! How could anyone debate the bible! It's the word of God! It is the truth and the devine light! Everything that's holy and pure is within the bible, so it must be truth.

I'm shocked and dismayed. No wonder I restrict my kids from using the internet, especially when I see filth like this. I try to give my children a good Christian upbringing and I don't expect them to question the word of God. God would be angry if anyone questioned it. And God is pure and holy, so why would anyone want to question him anyway. It's better than following SATAN!

I will be reporting you all to the internet police! Hopefully they can shut you down and stop such vile attitudes that corrupt our clean society.

Sincerely,
Nigel Manning Smith

Quote from: DGMacphee on Tue 24/02/2004 12:41:43

Quote from: YakSpit on Tue 24/02/2004 12:33:11
Massive low-loss compression algorithms, dumbshit.

Oh, Yakspit -- You and your witty play on words!

WTF? You recognized a play on words without a freakin' smiley? There's hope for mankind yet.

Edit: /me reads "Nigel's" post and shrugs.  What the hell? I'll tag along with the Satan dude.

These debates, agruments and counter arguments have already been played out a million times on Usenet, etc. Why don't we just recognize that no-one changes their minds with these arguments anyway so lets just leave it and elope to get bisexually married, as Yufster's teacher suggests.

farlander, maybe I'm just not getting your post the way I'm meant to, but the bible does NOT incorporate 5,000 years of history. It postulates the existance of an earth only 2,000 years old. Not a day more (okay - maybe a day or two, but you get the idea)

YakSpit is right on the money with his faith/works thing. And he's ESPECIALLY right about the dumbness of that site. I've decided to give my 'reasoning' a rest for two reasons. 1) People will hate me and call me a bible-basher, which would probably become quite true if I were to keep going like I am and 2) It will save your eyes a lot of tired reading that could have been saved had those silly people who made the site BOTHERED TO DO SOME RESEARCH. Often it's just a matter of reading a couple of verses before/after, and suddenly their whole issue dies.

I also agree with SSH. There are many conclusions to be drawn from your argument. Which one EXACTLY, I do not know. FINALLY!! SOMETHING I HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT!! YAY!!!! My only quibble is some of the stuff written in the Misna. I won't go into why, because it took me nearly six months to understand the bloody book, and I don't want to repeat my thought processes on the keyboard :D

DG - your dinosaur post was a joke, right? if so, it's kind of odd, but if not, it's already been answered. The bible doesn't go into definitions of dinosaurs, but then again a lot of what scientists produce is only theory anyway, so there's not much factual stuff to compare. But yes, behemoth's are mentioned (some other names are used, depending on your translation).

I officially end here for 12 hours. yes - that's right! my bed time!! yay!! sleep has come at last......

sorry if I've been a P3N!$ to anyone in particular. It's nothing personal, I just get a little fiery over some topics, and people can interpret that the wrong way.

See you when I rise, everyone!! :D Sweet Dreams!!

EDIT: I love Nigel. When I grow up I want to be like Nigel. Actually, when I grow up, I want to BE Nigel!

QuoteWTF? You recognized a play on words without a freakin' smiley? There's hope for mankind yet.

Though people who begin sentences with net acronyms (like 'WTF' and 'OMG') still make us look bad.

P.S. I also recognise sarcasm! Ain't I a fucking talented bitch?  ;D

Quote from: Peter Thomas on Tue 24/02/2004 12:53:45
but then again a lot of what scientists produce is only theory anyway, so there's not much factual stuff to compare.

Except for these crazy things called........ DINOSAUR FOSSILS!

okay... so I said I was going to bed... and so I lied...

but this IS my last post.

You are right, DG, there are a lot of fossils around, and I don't pretend to have any clue whether they all match up or not, but I have always wondered how they determine the colour of an animal that is supposedly 6 million years old. I know there are ways of predicting etc, but they act awful smug for a couple of people who've been wandering this earth supposedly only a TENTH of the time of dinosaurs.

This really IS goodnight, now.

Give my regards to broadway  :-*

Quote from: Peter Thomas on Tue 24/02/2004 12:53:45
farlander, maybe I'm just not getting your post the way I'm meant to, but the bible does NOT incorporate 5,000 years of history. It postulates the existance of an earth only 2,000 years old. Not a day more (okay - maybe a day or two, but you get the idea)

Ummmm.... that would mean that then earth began after Jesus was born... I think 5000 is closer to the mark

I am not saying that the bible does not mention that Pilate judged Jesus... But it clearly says that he "washed his hands", which makes the whole history so much suitable for the people whose this "revisited" version was aimed for... the Romans.

And I can ensure you that no roman procurator (sp?) could wash his hands in front of a death penalty. He had to take a decission, and we know which was this... Romans acceded (at least) to the death penalty of Jesus.

BTW... if Jesus was really an annoying man for the Jewish church, there would be no need of Trial. Powers in the shadow (like nowadays) were perfectly able to finish discretely with a man, while the crucifixion seems to be more a punishement used as an example, more in the style of the Romans.

God, doesn't like people who lie!  ;D

Quotebut I have always wondered how they determine the colour of an animal that is supposedly 6 million years old.

Yeah, but that doesn't change the fact that they're... DINOSAUR FOSSILS!

Forget the colour, because they're... DINOSAUR FOSSILS!

Like, actual physical evidence of creatures that have existence longer than we have.

In fact, they even predate the beginning of the Earth according to Genesis.

QuoteI know there are ways of predicting etc, but they act awful smug for a couple of people who've been wandering this earth supposedly only a TENTH of the time of dinosaurs.

As opposed to people who act awful smug that they can actually interpret what God meant to say in the bible?

A little hypocrisy there! It's like Saddam saying to Osama, "You'd better hide, dude!"

Just one thing Peter Thomas... Bible says that the World has 2,000 yeas old... that part of the bible was written 3,000 years ago... SO:

According to the Bible, the earth is 5,000 years old... what I´ve said in my post, where´s the problem? Where have I missquoted the Bible?  ???

Quote from: DGMacphee on Tue 24/02/2004 13:04:46

Like, actual physical evidence of creatures that have existence longer than we have.

No, they are physical evidence of creatures that no longer exist. Proving that they date from millions of years ago is more difficult...

http://www.barahome.co.uk/Barahome/Christian/fossils.htm
http://www.wasdarwinright.com/Fossils.asp

As I said, there are thousnad of web sites on both sides of the srguments all over the place. You will be able to find some that counter the ones I have above. I can then find some that debunk those counter arguments, etc. etc.

The person who has the last word in this argument wont be the one who is right but rather the one with the most stamina for keeping the thread going. So, lets talk about something else!

well if it says the Earth has only been around that short a time, does that include the universe?

Maybe the earth went into storage after an ice age or something.

But explain this: the light we see coming from some stars are millions of light years away, which means the stars we see at night are from light that has been travelling way longer than the earth has been in existance. Some of the light could have been travelling that long. And those same stars were around 2000 years ago & the light had still been travelling millions of years before that. (and this is not just a theory, it is actually measurable, there is no argument about this one)

But I have also heard that in the creation story of earth & the universe, the term days isn't in our sense of the word (how convenient) and was actually over a longer period of time, but it still is one of those stories that seems way off, hence helps in hindering beliefs around the world.

The big bang theory makes more sense but it still could be the same story as creation, but just explained in different terms.

Then there's evolution, that is a whole other story that we haven't covered much, but as we will never know any of these answers, it's good to see some different responses from people in how they deal with the unknown.

We just go on what other people have taught us or what we have read, then we make up our own minds anyway.

Who can you trust in the end?

it's me, honest, I don't even have my fingers crossed behind my back.

SSH and Timosity:
You got me wrong.

I'm actually going by the Christian dating of the Earth, which extends to about 12,000-20,000 years ago (even though I don't believe it).

And since PT said dinosaurs supposedly existed 6 million years ago, that means they are supposedly older than human beings according to the bible.


EDIT: And even if they didn't exist millions of years ago, how come the bible makes no mention of giant flying lizards during the lifespan of the bible? I mean, the fossils are still physical evidence, right?

Surely there would have been a greater mention of giant lizards in the bible if they were even 12,000 years old?

Quote from: Timosity on Tue 24/02/2004 13:30:35
But explain this: the light we see coming from some stars are millions of light years away, which means the stars we see at night are from light that has been travelling way longer than the earth has been in existance.

Look, if you accept that God can create the universe then making a few photons half-way between distant stars and here is hardly difficult for him. Being omnipotent means that you can do anything... of course, why he would do that is much harder to answer, but then I'm not qualified to psychoanalyse anyone, let alone the creator of the universe.

God COULD have made the world 5000 years ago and stuck some fossils in the ground. God could have kept the flying lizards out of the way of the humans so they didn't get eaten by them. If you try, there are plenty of plausible explanations for such questions. If you try, you can make some explanations sound silly, and no doubt many of them are. The closest thing we have to contemporary accounts are all poo-poohed by scientists as being mysitcal nonsense, but then all the scientists are doing is extrapolating from the scant set of facts that they have.

Maybe we should concentrate on the problems of the future rather than bicker over those of the past.

Let's talk about Iraq again!  ;D

SSH, being omnipotent and all, shouldn't it also not be so hard for him to phone in every once in a while? I mean it's been 2000 years...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20040224/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_gay_marriage_14

you goddamned peice of shit

Quote from: MrColossal on Tue 24/02/2004 18:13:47
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20040224/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_gay_marriage_14

you goddamned peice of shit

Even if that weren't old news, couldn't you have guessed that? What sucks is that since most Americans are just as close minded, if the Dem candidate doesn't declare the same, Bush has a good chance of winning again.

QuoteLast time I was offended at all the bad language you used, but this time you've gone too far! How could anyone debate the bible! It's the word of God! It is the truth and the devine light! Everything that's holy and pure is within the bible, so it must be truth.

I'm shocked and dismayed. No wonder I restrict my kids from using the internet, especially when I see filth like this. I try to give my children a good Christian upbringing and I don't expect them to question the word of God. God would be angry if anyone questioned it. And God is pure and holy, so why would anyone want to question him anyway. It's better than following SATAN!

;D ;D

In other news: I ultra, ultra respect Peter Thomas, even though his views go against every single one of mine, when it comes to Gay Rights. He's seriously the only christian with such views, that I have ever respected. He seems to be willing to examine his own beliefs and he's not rude or anything. I just thought I'd mention it because, a lot of christians in his shoes would be screaming the details of how we're going to burn in hell.

What I don't get is that, if most people here are pro-gay marriage, and most people I know (even in catholic Ireland!) are pro-gay marriage... and most of the americans I know are pro gay-marriage... Why in good god did the vote a couple of years ago on Gay Marriages get a 66% result for the anti-gay side?

Quote from: Indiana Psychonaut on Tue 24/02/2004 19:18:32
In other news: I ultra, ultra respect Peter Thomas, even though his views go against every single one of mine, when it comes to Gay Rights. He's seriously the only christian with such views, that I have ever respected. He seems to be willing to examine his own beliefs and he's not rude or anything. I just thought I'd mention it because, a lot of christians in his shoes would be screaming the details of how ****we're **** going to burn in hell.

Yufster, are you in a gay marriage? m0ds will be so disappointed!

also, out of interest, do you not respect my views on gay rights, or did you not realise that I'm a Christian, or something else?

I'm in America, and most of the Americans I know are against gay marriage. The reason most of the Americans you talk to are not against gay marriage is probably because you don't enjoy talking to bigots on the Internet, eh?

Poor Peter and SSH are ganged up upon, I respect them both.

All of the Irish people I know think that Ian Paisley is a right pillock, but that doesn't stop him getting votes, either...

My ex-flatmate is married to a girl who's sister is married to Ian Paisley Jr., though...

I just noticed that Peter Thomas appears to be a particularly fundamental christian and yet still is unlike the stereotype and is quite gentle about the way he puts his point across, which is more than I can say for a lot of pro-gay people on this thread...

On the other hand I completely disagree with him and think Gay Marriage should totally be allowed.

EDIT: Now I can tell all my friends that I know a guy who knows another guy who knows a girl who has a sister that is married to a  guy that is related to Ian Paisley!!! :D

As a matter of interest, does it specifically say in the bible at any point that A Marriage between two people of the same sex is not allowed? I am talking about Marriage. Not whether it is right; specifically marriage. Does it say that? Anybody know?

Hello all - I am awake again! Let us celebrate.

To answer Indiana, I can't think of a specific verse that talks about MARRIAGE only... I honestly can't. It talks about not being gay though, so I suppose that sort of covers the marriage aspect.

But again - a direct answer from me would be 'no'.

To answer earlier posts, yeah - I messed up. I said the earth was 2,000 years old because...actually... I have no hell of an idea why I said that...maybe I was just really tired, I have no clue ;D  The rest of you were right - the earth is about 4,000 (5,000 at the absolute most) years old.

For DG - The dinosaur issue doesn't come into the bible a lot because the bible is not what you would call a 'modern epic'. There is no description of pretty much anything environmental if you look at it. No one comments on the architechture of Pharo's empire, no one talks about the soft hay Jesus was born in (who knows - coulda been prickly as hell...) and no one cares about flying lizards unless they do something dramatic for the plot. Which they didn't. So they didn't get a mention.

That, however, doesn't deny their existence at all. I believe there were all sorts of freaky animals running around, and I don't know too many *normal* christians who don't. But I don't believe they predate the existance of the earth. When I said "dinosaurs that are supposedly 6 million years old" I was talking about it from a scientific point of view. I believe dinosaurs did NOT predate man. Well, maybe by a day or two, because God created animals before man, but not any longer.

As for farlander's posts about the Jewish/Roman trial, I will have to look into it further. I can completely see where you're coming from, and it does seem a little strange, however there are a few things that don't quite add up. I won't go into it because it would take forever and nobody would care. But also I don't have any proof for my side, so I'll shut up...

Please read this, then.

(To all of the below: I'm trying to speak from a Christian viewpoint. I believe that Gay People have every right, I believe that there is nothing wrong or condemnable about their conduct, I believe it's perfectly natural and I do not believe in god. However, I tried to understand the christian viewpoint for this argument.)

Okay well, just a thought... The Bible does not specifically say that marriage between two men or two women is wrong. According to the bible we are all born sinners and all of us do things knowing that it goes against the bible, whether it's profanity or whatever. So if being gay is a sin, then gay people are sinners, and so are we all. They're no more or less a sinner, especially if they believe what they do is right.

If the bible does not ban the marriage... fine, so it says that being gay is wrong, but.. here is my theory for christians... you're supposed to get married to the one you love, right? Well, if gay people are allowed to marry... so they got the first part wrong in that they're gay, but at least they're getting the second part right in that they carry out their relationship under the bond of marriage.

I don't think that, according to christian faith, we are allowed to judge others and, if god does not like the marriage then I'm sure he'll find some way of letting us know, or he'll spank them all when they go to heaven.

The bible says a lot of things are wrong that we do every day. However, it has not specifically banned a gay marriage, and I don't believe Bush has the authority or the right to do such a thing as write that in to the American Constitution. Since the bible does not BAN gay marriage SPECIFICALLY, perhaps it is best to allow them to go forward, and let God himself decide whether they are valid or not. If Christians choose to believe they are not valid, then that is their choice. But we have not got the right to disallow something like that unless god too, has disallowed it.

Does that seem that fair? Do you understand what I meant or am I being too muddled?


EDIT: I mean, two wrongs don't make a right. If it's wrong for them to be gay, and it's also wrong for them to have a relationship out of the bonds of marriage... At least if they have a relationship within the sacred marriage bond, it's half right. You see?

Why even look into the bible for whether or not gay marriage is legal or not? No religious book should have any weight as to the equality of any person. This country is based on freedom, "For liberty and Justice for all," and denying a people a right given to 90% of the rest of the people is a form of persecution.

If you want to, call marriage something else, but let gay couples be allowed the right to the same tax breaks as "normal" couples. I don't see how it makes marriage any more or less special. My parents won't suddenly say, "I can sleep around now that gay couples can be married," or "Somehow I don't love you as much anymore." This would never happen, or wouldn't be caused by allowing gay marriages.

I'm allowed to marry any girl I want, even if I don't love her...but because I'm a man and she is a women, suddenly wether I love her or not doesn't matter to the state. Whether it matters to religions or not doesn't matter. However, I can only assume from my Jewish roots, marriage isn't about marrying someone you loved...otherwise how does one go about explaining planned marriages, where you've never seen your spouse? So I'm allowed to marry a complete stranger (granted a U.S. citizen, otherwise the govenment will look into it), but these two men/women who've known each other for years can't do the same thing?

If we go so far as to say Gay people can't get married, and it ruins the sanctity of marriage, why not go further? Gay people dating, totally ruins my night at the movie. All I can think about with my arm wrapped around my girl, are gay couples. Damn them, I say! For ruining this whole movie for me! In fact them breathing the same air, that God breathed into man, ruins breathing for me, as well. Each air molecule is tainted by the fact that a person who had relations with a person of the same sex, might have breathed the same air! How will I live! I say concentration camps! Put them to work, until they realise that gay marriage just isn't meant to be.

Mind you, I don't think the U.S. is going to start concentration camps, or have anything remotely as bad as the Nazi's. However, how can a supposed free country, claim to be such, when it's obvious that banning something from someone and allowing others it's use, not be considered directly opposed to what the country stands for. I think that by allowing a law that supposedly keeps the sanctity of marriage, it does a piss poor job of holding to it's own morals of freedom.

I won't enter any debates as to the religious side of this argument, or any religious topics being discussed. I'll leave that for another thread. Perhaps it's shit like this that makes it so damn hard to be patriotic.

-MillsJROSS

MillsJRoss... The voice of a new generation...

at least the voice of me

That was pretty much one of the main points of my essay, religion is supposed to be a zero factor in government, and legally, the constitution does not mention gays, so it can be assumed they have every right as a heterosexual person. Nevertheless, most people in the country are christian and therefore every freaking thing that seems against the bible is persecuted.

I just had a fantasic conversation with a born again fundy christian.

First I stated my theory that since the bible never condemns gay MARRIAGES, Christians should not 'make their own decisions on behalf on god' and therefore Gay Marriages should be allowed. Also, that Gay Marriage should be allowed on the basis that although being gay is 'wrong', being married would at least conform to half of Gods requirements for a married couple...

He said it was illogical to say that being gay is wrong, and then allow them to marry.

I said that making a world in a couple of days is illogical by our logic, and that God doesn't have to work on the basis of logic. God works in Mysterious Ways. I've always wanted to throw that line back in the face of a christian who's trying to explain away crap from the bible with "God works in mysterious ways" and today I totally did it. I feel great. And it pissed him off just as much as it has pissed me off in the past.

He gave an example, "If I tell my daughter not to go outside, and she goes outside wearing her shoes, that does not make it better that she disobeyed me although she was safer while wearing her shoes."

I retaliated by saying, "If you said she was not allowed outside, and you told everybody else they were only allowed outside while wearing their shoes, and she went outside without wearing her shoes, she will have broken two of your orders. If she wears her shoes, she will have only broken one."

He said, "wrong is wrong." He countered by quoting a part from the bible that said "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them" and saying he thought that made it clear he didn't want gay marriages.

I said that that quote clearly stated that gay people should be killed for the act of having gay sex.

He agreed that it was a good point; maybe they should.

I reminded him of the part of the bible where Jesus lets the sinful prostitute wash his feet, and he preaches that we should eat with sinners and forgive them because we are all born sinners according to the bible.

He said that doesn't mean you should make provisions for their sins.

And I said that since being wrong is wrong, and being sinful is being sinful, and Gay People should be put to death for their sin, and yet if wrong = wrong and sinful = sinful, and we're all sinful and sinful = wrong... then we should all be put to death, and logically then, having gay sex is the equivelent of being born, according to the bible...

He logged off.

Yufster 1, Idiot 0!!!


P.S. I don't believe that religion should have any ruling in the government of a country that claims to have religious freedom either. I am furious that Prez. Bush wants to write discrimination into the constitution, and furthermore, I am arguing mostly about the religious aspect of gay marriages because the main obstacle for them is the christian religion.

I didn't agree with you, Indiana Psyco.

The main problem isn't the Christian Religion... but the Church and all those creepy haters who seem to forget about the real basic  message from Jesus:

Love & Tolerance for Everyone.

Quote from: nope! on Tue 24/02/2004 23:13:09
The real basic  message from Jesus:

Love & Tolerance for Everyone.

Do we need Jesus ,or a Messiah to spread that message?

Jesus failed, Bouddha failed...

Chris Jones, our Messiah is the only who can spread the message "Love, Tolerance & Pixel Hunting"  ;)

 :D

Normally, I don't really like to post funny flashes because there are so many and they're so easy to find, but this is how ridiculous Bush looks in almost everything he says and does. (http://www.funsnap.com/1/bushgirl.swf)

QuoteFor DG - The dinosaur issue doesn't come into the bible a lot because the bible is not what you would call a 'modern epic'. There is no description of pretty much anything environmental if you look at it. No one comments on the architechture of Pharo's empire, no one talks about the soft hay Jesus was born in (who knows - coulda been prickly as hell...) and no one cares about flying lizards unless they do something dramatic for the plot. Which they didn't. So they didn't get a mention.

That, however, doesn't deny their existence at all. I believe there were all sorts of freaky animals running around, and I don't know too many *normal* christians who don't. But I don't believe they predate the existance of the earth. When I said "dinosaurs that are supposedly 6 million years old" I was talking about it from a scientific point of view. I believe dinosaurs did NOT predate man. Well, maybe by a day or two, because God created animals before man, but not any longer.

A talking burning bush gets a mention, lions gets mentioned, but dinosaurs get left out somehow?

I don't buy your theory -- I think there would have been at least some mention.

Also, you say they existed at the time of creation, right?

So did they all die during the floods cause they couldn't fit on Noah's Ark or something?

Like Unicorns?

I don't know what it is, but I have a little trouble believing this theory too.

That's the problem with any religion that holds the majority. They forget their place. The government should be secular and allow for any person to practice their religion as long as it harms or infringes on the rights of none.
How do you suppose Christians would feel if the Jews came along and tried to ban everyone else from eating non-Kosher food? Or if fundamentalist Muslims wanted all women of all religions to wear Burkas?

Just to interject in the dinosaur talk. A theory (I point out the word theory) that hasn't been brought up very often..

Let's play 'We know this is 100% true even if in acctualty we don't' for about 5 mins.

If the earth was infact created by a greater being and was not the product of a reaction such as a big bang theory or something.

As well if said God created the earth in the span of one day (Which you could argue up and down the length of that day in many ways but lets just not focus on time right now)

Now to the theory.. If God did create the earth he had to make it out of something. I do not believe God works in poofs. He has no magic tricks.. He doesn't say 'Alakasam' or some magic word and billions of pounds of dirt, earth, minerals and all the things our earth is made out of suddenly apeared. Just no.. I believe God is logical and works in all strickly scientificul ways proovable ways even if we are to meak to understand it.

That said.. all the materials on this earth had to come from somewhere. Where? I don't know.. but those materials could have been floating around for oooh I don't know.. 60 million years.. 80 million years.. 798 trillion years.. Who knows.

To put the theory bluntly.. Dinosaurs could have not ever stepped one foot on the earth. Fossils and other goodies came with the soil and minerals used to create it.

1. Never did I say I personally believe this theory I just 2. brought it up cause I think it is an interesting point of view.

Now that said.. DG and um.. Pete.. I think Pete lemme check..

Peter close enough. I respect your guys somewhat mature discussion regarding religon though I ask as a personal favor (And no way trying to be a mod or push anyone around) Ask it be moved into its own topic because this is going way off from the original topic.. As well I am sorry I helped push it farther.

Quote from: Peter Thomas on Tue 24/02/2004 21:10:32
To answer earlier posts, yeah - I messed up. I said the earth was 2,000 years old because...actually... I have no hell of an idea why I said that...maybe I was just really tired, I have no clue ;D  The rest of you were right - the earth is about 4,000 (5,000 at the absolute most) years old.

Just on this part I'd have to totally disagree, if you are going on evidence in a book that uses lots of metaphors (and did you read the bit about a day not being a day in our terms) I think what I mentioned about light is proof enough, and I know SSH had a valid argument, but that is really just clutching at straws.

I seriously think (IMO) that most christians have been in denial for thousands of years and some are now realising that not all they've learned is true (sure a lot of it is) but why try and convince yourself of things that are even obvious to you, couldn't be possible. (drug addicts are good at rationalising things to themself too, but are they right????) there are too many flaws in the story "physically", maybe the years got mixed up just like in FOA, and 5,000 really means 50 Million or 50 Billion, now I think that is more likely, and is quite possible, would explain Dinosaurs & Stars. I think this particular error has been argued many times before.

And if you literally hear God speak to you, it's called a delusion, you need to seek a doctor straight away,

he only speaks to you in other ways (conveniently) like you get a pay rise, so you have extra money to donate to a charity. (which is not really God talking, it's just using your mind the way you were brought up (brainwashing)) but if it works for you, you can claim it was God telling you but it really wasn't, unless God is in your mind (then that's a Delusion)

I have witnessed a couple of friends having Delusions in real life and it's quite scarey, it's quite similar to the way they portray people possessed in movies, it's like it's not really them, even though they are right there, they seem confused & aggitated, and don't seem to make all that much sense.

It's usually a Lithium imbalance, which means they are given Lithium, which Is a very serious substance that I won't go into.

I don't know why I brought any of this up, but you can see how certain things said can be miss interpreted, like hearing the word of God.

Can Homosexual couples get Married in SF yet, have we convinced them enough

Marriage is also a religious issue because it's a religious concept.

And nowhere in the bible does it say that a Gay Couple cannot get married.

It does, however, state that they should be killed for their sin.

All sin is sin, no matter how big or small.

We are all born sinners.

Therefore, we should all be killed at birth.

Because if Gays should be killed for their sin, then so should we.

Because a sin is a sin.

And if you're going to disobey the bible by not allowing Gay Marriages, which it does NOT ban, you're also disobeying the bible because it says Gay People should be 'put to death' for the act of being gay, which clearly, people are not obeying.

You could say that God did not intend for Gay People to live longer enough to marry so he didn't have to make that rule about marriage. It goes without saying.

But then, maybe so does allowing Gay People driving licenses, food, water, housing... anything. Maybe we shouldn't be doing that. He never mentioned that we should or should not give them food or water either.

Looks like people are cherry-picking from the bible, and when there's no cherry to pick, they break off part of the branch.

God never forbade a gay marriage.

To assume things on behalf of god is a sin.

So by not killing gay people, we are sinning. By not letting them marry we are also sinning, because we're forbading it on behalf of god.

I see a flaw. Or at least, I did, before my head exploded.

Sylph, that is one of the most interesting theories I've heard -- that dinosaurs might have come from another planet.

But even then, they'd still be older than us.

Yuf, the concept of marriage is not unique to any specific religion or culture, especially not christianity. It's a natural thing for two people in love to pair together for life.

I know. What I mean is that the main argument people use against gay marriage is that it's a christian thing, and that's why there's so much by way of religious argument.

Of course I believe that religion shouldn't even be an issue in this, but quite frankly it's the only issue. Without religion blasting people with anti-gay propaganda, the minority of true homophobic people would be practically void an of course, gay people would be allowed marry.

If athiests and devil worshippers and people who aren't in love are allowed marry by law, and if criminals are allowed marry, and people are allowed marry for money or fame, or for publicity stunts... if none of that is against the law, then to refuse to allow a gay couple to marry, whether or not you're christian, is purely discriminitive.

Marriage is not a strictly religious concept.  I'm definately shouting alongside some of the others here, "Religion's got nothing to do with an act of government!"  However, the reality is that a very significant portion of American society is raised with a Christian upbringing and still keeps Christian values in the forefront, regardless of whether or not they're still practicing their faith.  Since these are the people who will be backing the constitutional amendment proposition, these are the people we've got to argue against.  Those here of this particular faith, I don't mean to pick on you but without generalizations, these posts become novellas.

Yufster: It could be rude of me to say but you're pulling facts, quotes, contradictions and theories out of second-hand knowledge, internet searches and suppositions.  What the fundamentalist you talked to should've replied with is that the death for homosexuality law was done away with.  God ruled more stringently and required adherance to precise guidelines that he had set.  In the new testament (and it's called that for this very reason) Jesus said [paraphrased] "I say to you, no more an eye for an eye, for through me God has made a new convenant." He goes on to talk about 'turning the other cheek,' 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you', 'love thy neighbor as thyself.'  So, the death-penalty for all thing doesn't quite work.  

Similarly, it should be mentioned that not all sins are created equal.  That is, different sins merited different penalties.  There were some sins atoned for by sacrificing animals, others by asking forgiveness of the person you wronged and still others punishable by death.  There is even one sin that the New Testament mentions is unforgivable - blasphemy of the Holy Spirit's work giving testimony to Jesus.  (somewhere around Mk. 3:29; Lk. 12:10) Of course, it's not as plausible a sin today since the Jesus guy isn't strolling around so much anymore.  

The thread ought to be re-labelled or simply done away with, it's so far off-topic with no resolution in sight.  I'll bow out now.

Actually, Yufster is stating something pretty close to the views that George Whitfield had:

All of us are sinners
The wages of sin are death
therefore we all deserve death

What Yakspit says about atonement is true: a lot of the Law books of the old testament are saying that the atonement for sin X is Y... death of a lamb, death of a cow, etc. etc.

The message of Jesus was actually to toughen up the law: all sins deserve death. And Jesus said that he came not to abolish the law but to fulfil it. Thus he died in our stead. So our death is no longer required.

So we can just do what we like, then, eh?

Well, Jesus also said "Repent, or you will perish". I beleive that Jesus has made just one qualification for entry to heaven:

Be sorry for the bad things that you have done and ask him to bear the punishment. Obviously, this implies actually believing in him.

Now, you can take the gamble that you'll be alive on your deathbed to repent of all those things. Myself, I try to repent daily, becuase I do bad things every day. But it is hard to repent when you know that you're just going to go and do it again tomorrow. Maybe even after you die then Jesus comes to you and says "Bet you're sorry now, eh?" and most people (there's always SOME who wouldn't) would say, "Ooops, sorry, please forgive me" and go to heaven too. That's a deity's prerogative, as Jonah found out.

Now, I could take advantage of God's grace in all this, but that would imply that I've missed the point and also it would be mightily ungrateful. For every extra sin I commit, Jesus has to bear an extra load on the cross for me, so I'll do my best to try and reduce that burden.

One of the problems that Luther had with the Catholic church at the time he posted his theses was that they had gone back to the idea of paying out specific amounts of good works, prayers or purgatory for each sin, which is exactly what Jesus came to abolish.

So, the bible reads to me like certain sexual acts are a sin. To others, it reads that such laws were cutural or metaphorical or mistranslated, or whatever.I hope they sincerely beleive that, and are not just looking for an excuse to do what they want. But if they beleive in Jesus's grace, I think they'll end up in heaven. It's God's opinion on it that really matters and I trust him to do what is good. So really, what then for gay marriage? I don't think that Christianity was ever meant to be a set of laws for a state to follow, but rather a moral guide for those whithin any state that believed in it. So let states do what they wish, and hopefully they will follow their consicence to try and eliminate inequalities, unfairness and hatred. The US isn't heading in that direction just now.

Quote from: SSH on Wed 25/02/2004 13:49:00
So let states do what they wish, and hopefully they will follow their consicence to try and eliminate inequalities, unfairness and hatred. The US isn't heading in that direction just now.

Poll: Kerry has big California lead, Bush's ratings have plunged  (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/02/25/state0934EST0040.DTL)

With a little luck, we will be. I think if a law passes through Congress and is signed before election, the Supreme Courts will just strike it down. Constitutionally, it isn't right.

More or less back on subject and also mildly amusing:
http://www.whitehouse.org/dof/marriage.asp (http://www.whitehouse.org/dof/marriage.asp)

I haven't got a bible on my person ATM to check their references but there's a bit taken out of context.  

Not only writing discrimination into the constitution, but they're writing Christianity into a constitution that claims to promote freedom of religion.

Threads like this become 8 pages long because people side-track by talking about dinosaurs and replying with a smiley only.

The simple point is this: The issue is NOT to force churches to marry gays, it's for the government to marry gays. If it were to force churches to do so, I could see religious zealots and other people saying "It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!" Instead, it's about the government. I don't think many gays would WANT to marry in a Catholic church anyway.

I don't see any other argument making sense, because if you argue religiously, your argument is automatically null and void.

Quote from: terranRICH on Thu 26/02/2004 14:44:01
I don't think many gays would WANT to marry in a Catholic church anyway.

I wouldn't think they'd want anything to do with churches at all, but then there is that gay Bishop. I don't understand how they could be a part of a religion with so much hate against them in the Bible.