Bush goes anti-***..

Pidder

Diabloii.Net Member
Anyee said:
Hold on, you think that in the US, a Jewish heterosexual marriage is not recognized the same as a Christian heterosexual marriage? Wow. Where the hell are you getting your information from?

ALL heterosexual marriages, whether performed in a church by a priest, a mosque by an imam, a temple by a rabbi, on the beach by a licensed friend, in a courthouse by a judge, or in Vegas by an Elvis impersonator, are recognized by both the state and federal government (barring such things as incest or illegal age differences).

You DO NOT need to be married in a religious ceremony to obtain marriage benefits. Far from it. So long as the person performing the marriage has juristiction to do so, the marriage is legal. Doesn't matter if the couple consecrates themselves to Satan during the ceremony or says that God sucks. Marriage is marriage so long as you have the license.

You're also implying that most homosexuals are atheists. Far from that, as well. Most that I know are at least spiritual, if not deeply religious. Some are Jews, some are Christian, some are sketchy pagan (like Smeg! :D). Many would choose to get married with some sort of diety's blessing.

I'm no expert on US marriage law, I thought I made that clear. I also say that

Christian marriages and non-christian partnerships (*** or non-***) should all be equal to the law. I don't know if that's the case in american today, is it?

That quote kind of sums up my thoughts on the subject.

I may have misunderstood what Bush's meant when he said: We must do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage.

I immediately thought he was talking about christian marriages and not marriages in general. If he's talking about denying ***-couples the same rights as other married couples recieve, I think he's a serious shithole. If he thinks that homosexuals shouldn't marry in a christian fashion, he has a point.

On the atheist part:
I haven't said that I think most homosexuals are atheist. I've only said that I find it troubling that a homosexual would want to be a christian based on the fact that the Bible says some nasty things about homosexuality.
 

Anyee

Diabloii.Net Member
Pidder said:
I'm no expert on US marriage law, I thought I made that clear. I also say that
Yes, but three minutes of google could have fixed that. Oy.

I may have misunderstood what Bush's meant when he said: We must do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage.
Sanctity...meaning sacredness in general, not Christian.

I immediately thought he was talking about christian marriages and not marriages in general. If he's talking about denying ***-couples the same rights as other married couples recieve, I think he's a serious shithole. If he thinks that homosexuals shouldn't marry in a christian fashion, he has a point.
I'm entertained that Bush, as some variety of...Baptist? can dictate what the other 15 or 20 major branches of Christianity can't and cannot do. Ditto for you.

On the atheist part:
I haven't said that I think most homosexuals are atheist. I've only said that I find it troubling that a homosexual would want to be a christian based on the fact that the Bible says some nasty things about homosexuality.
Pfah. It also says some nasty things about non-Jews and women. Still, there are a strangely high number of women Christians around. It's called selective interpretation. It's how people can say that the bible supports interracial marriages while others say it maintains racial purity.

I'm just wondering where you get your info from...
 

Pidder

Diabloii.Net Member
selective interpretation

I find that concept amusing. What's the point in being a christian if you don't agree with the book which the entire religion is based upon? I sure as hell don't agree with things written in the bible and hence, I'm not a memeber of any church.
 

Anyee

Diabloii.Net Member
Pidder said:
selective interpretation

I find that concept amusing. What's the point in being a christian if you don't agree with the book which the entire religion is based upon? I sure as hell don't agree with things written in the bible and hence, I'm not a memeber of any church.
Well...if you read the New Testament strictly, you will read something that says, in essence, that following Jesus means you don't have to really follow the Old Testament. He talks about destroying and rebuilding the temples and creating a slightly different religion. The other problem with the new testament is that quite a bit of it was written by people who might not have known Jesus at all, i.e. Paul, so following what Jesus tells you might not be what following Paul would lead you to believe.
 

guspasho

Diabloii.Net Member
Smelly said:
Marriage is Marriage. I don't know why people get their panties in a bunch when they find out a homosexual couple is married. "Oh no, you've offended God!" Well unless I see him striking bolts down at EVERYONE for pissing him off in the slightest, I don't see why people should care if a *** couple gets married. It's not like you walk around with floating bubbles above your head that say "I'M MARRIED" or wear sticky notes or a billboard claiming so. Come on, people. Get a damn grip.

Haha great quote! And so true. Sigged.
 

guspasho

Diabloii.Net Member
Pidder said:
selective interpretation

I find that concept amusing. What's the point in being a christian if you don't agree with the book which the entire religion is based upon? I sure as hell don't agree with things written in the bible and hence, I'm not a memeber of any church.
Selective interpretation means finding new and creative ways to keep your predisposed opinions and still be in agreement with what the Bible says. People do that all the time. For example, most reasonable Christians believe the heavens and the earth were created in about ten or fifteen billion years, in direct contradiction with the bible they follow. The point, they say, is not that the heavens and the earth were created in six days, but that God created them, etc.
 

guspasho

Diabloii.Net Member
This bit about selective interpretation reminds me of an email forward I recieved and just had to save.

From: "Rettig, Liz"

Dr. Laura Schlessinger recently said that, as an observant Orthodox ***, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance.

The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a US resident, which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as informative:

Dear Dr Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as a many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for
example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it
to be an abomination. ..... End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them.

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. should I smite them?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7.In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual cleanliness - Lev.15:19-24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female,provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

6. Eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10. Is it a lesser abomination than homosexuality? I don't agree. Can you settle this?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes
me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two
different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to
death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal
and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan. David Ackerman
 

SaroDarksbane

Diabloii.Net Site Pal
People do that all the time. For example, most reasonable Christians believe the heavens and the earth were created in about ten or fifteen billion years, in direct contradiction with the bible they follow
Not true. The Hebrew word translated to the English word "day" can actually be used to describe an indeterminate amount of time. Seven days? Seven years? Seven seconds?

Who knows.
 

guspasho

Diabloii.Net Member
SaroDarksbane said:
Not true. The Hebrew word translated to the English word "day" can actually be used to describe an indeterminate amount of time. Seven days? Seven years? Seven seconds?

Who knows.
My point stands.
 

SaroDarksbane

Diabloii.Net Site Pal
No, you claimed that their beliefs were, and I quote "in direct contradiction with the Bible", which they aren't. Unless you meant that your point in general stands, just not in this specific instance, in which case you might be right.
 

Steel_Avatar

Diabloii.Net Member
Uh yeah. The point does stand. See, when you explained away a contradiction that would invalidate a major cornerstone of their belief (Creation), you made a selective interpretation. You don't know that the 7 days in the Bible is meant to be so many million years. For all you know, it could have meant seconds or minutes. But you chose to explain as if it did mean a lengthy period of time.

See? Selective interpretation of the Bible. Making it say what you want it to.
 

SaroDarksbane

Diabloii.Net Site Pal
Uh yeah. The point does stand. See, when you explained away a contradiction that would invalidate a major cornerstone of their belief (Creation)
What contradiction?
you made a selective interpretation. You don't know that the 7 days in the Bible is meant to be so many million years. For all you know, it could have meant seconds or minutes. But you chose to explain as if it did mean a lengthy period of time.
No, I specifically said the time is indeterminate. Thus, no matter how long you believe the earth has been around, you can't say the Bible contradicts it, really. How can you "explain away" a contradiction that doesn't exist in the first place? I'm confused . . .
 

cleanupguy

Diabloii.Net Member
I am also entirely against W. Bush, but I think the guy is well received by so many people. In my opinion, the majority of America IS in support of Democratic party, but when it comes down to voting, Republicans are so much more well organized.

Also, with 9/11 still lingering in the back of people's minds, I'm not entirely sure that people won't put up with his crap.

I myself will never vote for W. Bush, but in order for us to send him away back to Texas, all democrats will have to show up at the poll booth. Also, there is the Green party factor involved as well.

zelfmoordis said:
I looked if there already was another post about this but I didn't see one, and for that matter: I still dont see one.

on topic: I would really be surprised if Bush gets re-elected, I just can't imagine that many americans are willing to put up witht his..

:wave:
 

cleanupguy

Diabloii.Net Member
The thing that's wrong about this country (USA) is that so many things are based on Christianity rather than humanity.

Pidder said:
I somewhat agree with Bush on this one, actually. Marriage, as a christian ceremony should be only between a man and a woman, the way the Bible states. Since the christian faith is against homosexuals in general there is no reason why they should marry as christians do. I'm troubled that any homosexual would want to have anything to do with the christian church.

However, homosexual partnerships should of course have the same rights as christian marriages, they're just not christian and shouldn't be treated like they are.

I'm atheist btw.
 

Wuhan_Clan

Diabloii.Net Member
SaroDarksbane said:
What contradiction?

No, I specifically said the time is indeterminate. Thus, no matter how long you believe the earth has been around, you can't say the Bible contradicts it, really. How can you "explain away" a contradiction that doesn't exist in the first place? I'm confused . . .
No not a contradiction because anything derived from the Bible is one's own interpretation. Even Christians don't REALLY know what the Bible means. I think the point was that Christians have been changing their interpretations of the Bible to conform with scientific evidence so that it would seem as if the Bible was right the whole time. In many instances, you can pick out a quote from the Bible and interpret it to support both sides of an argument.
 

Steel_Avatar

Diabloii.Net Member
SaroDarksbane said:
What contradiction?

No, I specifically said the time is indeterminate. Thus, no matter how long you believe the earth has been around, you can't say the Bible contradicts it, really. How can you "explain away" a contradiction that doesn't exist in the first place? I'm confused . . .
Then you might as well say that God took a hojillion billion years to create the Earth :rolleyes:
 

SaroDarksbane

Diabloii.Net Site Pal
Then you might as well say that God took a hojillion billion years to create the Earth
Why not? Although for every piece of evidence that supports an old earth, there's another that supports a young earth. Personally, I believe in a young earth, but I find it silly to argue about it in the context of my Christian religion, because the point is moot either way.
 

cleanupguy

Diabloii.Net Member
Christianity has always been based on selective interpretation.

The interpretations of the Bible 500 years ago would be much different from the interpretations of the Bible today. This is exactly the reason why there are so many denominations in the Christian community.

Selective interpretation is no strange concept at all.

For example, Jesus says cast your stone at the prostitute only if you haven't sinned before. Yet, everybody, including all Christians, pass judgment to other people on daily basis. Bush, being a self-claimed devoted Christian, is FOR death penalty. I am sure his interpretation of the Bible is vastly different from what the Bible actually says when it comes down to punishing the guilty.

Pidder said:
selective interpretation

I find that concept amusing. What's the point in being a christian if you don't agree with the book which the entire religion is based upon? I sure as hell don't agree with things written in the bible and hence, I'm not a memeber of any church.
 

publius

Diabloii.Net Member
SaroDarksbane said:
Why not? Although for every piece of evidence that supports an old earth, there's another that supports a young earth. Personally, I believe in a young earth, but I find it silly to argue about it in the context of my Christian religion, because the point is moot either way.
So willful ignorance is the way to be a good Christian?
 
Top