Christian marriage is man and woman/husband and wife.

[99percentatheism]

There is no secular or theological challenge to be made that a "Christian marriage" isn't immutably a man and woman/husband and wife. Therefore, it should be a criminal act under current hate crimes laws, to accuse a Christian of hate, bigotry, or irrational . . ., if they assert the immutability of the structure of marriage as man and woman/husband and wife.

As Jesus proclaimed it in the Gospels and the writings reaffirm and define it so.

Why would anyone, religious or secularist, NOT support and affirm Christians adhering to the consistent and immutable Biblical teaching that a marriage is a man/husband and woman/wife?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 13:

well, I can see why you're on probation.

Please explain to us all how my being on probation lends credence to your claims.

What spew you waste your time on.

I don't think it's a waste of time responding to your spew, as so many Christians I know consider it impolite to challenge 'em, and God forbid you'd challenge 'em in a debate environment.

But once you offer up the "Jesus didn't exist" mumbo jumbo, you have just exited serious consideration.

I presented the fact that you haven't shown this Jesus dude ever existed, among other facts. That you find such a fact to be "mumbo jumbo" is sound indication the god concept is used when ignorance reigns. Clinical term on that ignorance deal - I expect 99percentatheism to be quite knowledgeable about the claims he seeks to present, insofar as he's got him a book to read 'em out of.

I understand this site does allow for some assumptions as we debate, but all I did was present a fact. I didn't challenge the notion, as I understand there's as much assuming going on as when I assume the old lady thinks I'm a mastermind.

I happen to believe a person of "Jesus" may well have existed, but temper such with my understanding that I also believe a person of "Paul Bunyan" may well have existed. I just happen to not just believe stories related to either for the mere one having them a printing press.

Yours is canned comeback and little else.

I propose if you could refute that "can", you wouldn't ever have the need to point out my flaws, but would instead concentrate on the flaws in your own claims or arguments.

Alas, we see that a thorough analysis of Christian claims will not be met with anything approaching the truth of the matter, but attempts to dissuade any and all from even challenging the Christian.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 16:

Post something with some substance and less attempts to just insult and I'll toss them your way.

Your inability to find substance in the words put to you is a condition you'll either hafta learn to overcome, or die with.

I object to the implication that my post lacked substance, and is therefore in violation of forum rules, especially since you couldn't find it within yourself to report said post, or address the individual points within, but prefer to pretend to be a moderator and make your own rulings.

Alas, we see the Christian who prefers to dismiss any and all argumentation that doesn't go his way.

I don't doubt in the least that many a Christian finds it "insulting" that their claims or arguments are countered.

Again, I object to your attempts to impugn my integrity, as you pretend to be a moderator.

I'm keeping my pearls safe for now. No need to watch them get trampled in your present wallow.

Of course, I must be a "swine" 'cause I don't take you at your word.

I propose you have no "pearls" to cast, where "pearls" are truth. You present claims devoid of any argument other'n they got them the written down.

I propose that if I'm the "swine", you're the scoundrel who'd rather insult than show he speaks truth. I further propose that you "keep your pearls safe" by refusing to address the points presented to you, or simply dismissing 'em, or claiming 'em too danged unsubstantial, 'cause your precious "pearls" can't be shown to be there, or be "pearls" if they are.

I will most certainly NOT accept some coward hiding behind his holy book in an attempt to impugn my integrity, as they play dress up like a moderator.

I will NOT accept anyone calling me a "swine" simply 'cause they happen to "really, really believe" in something, as they play let's all pretend I'm a mod, and that danged ol' Joey is just meaner'n all get out for challenging me on my unproven, unprovable assertions".


Referenced post will be reported for multiple violations. I felt here the need to respond, lest the observer think a pretend moderator has made him a ruling, and being unsure if the real one's'll present them one on it. <- That ain't no slam, just an acknowledgement they might just erase my report without comment.

[kayky]

There is no secular or theological challenge to be made that a "Christian marriage" isn't immutably a man and woman/husband and wife. Therefore, it should be a criminal act under current hate crimes laws, to accuse a Christian of hate, bigotry, or irrational . . ., if they assert the immutability of the structure of marriage as man and woman/husband and wife.

As Jesus proclaimed it in the Gospels and the writings reaffirm and define it so.

Why would anyone, religious or secularist, NOT support and affirm Christians adhering to the consistent and immutable Biblical teaching that a marriage is a man/husband and woman/wife?

[img

Last time I checked, we still have freedom of speech in this country. [/img]

[micatala]

well, I can see why you're on probation. What spew you waste your time on.

But once you offer up the "Jesus didn't exist" mumbo jumbo, you have just exited serious consideration.

Yours is canned comeback and little else.

Post something with some substance and less attempts to just insult and I'll toss them your way.

I'm keeping my pearls safe for now. No need to watch them get trampled in your present wallow.

Moderator Warning


There is no need to jibe another member for being on probation.

It is also uncivil to intimate another member is a swine.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[McCulloch]

I'm still a happy person. Canada seems a rather oppressive place to me. The standard "progressive" world and worldview fruit and all.

I'm happy too. Canada does not seem oppressive to me.

For now I'm sure. You got that Muslim and LGBT community thing growing like crazy don't you?

I agree with you that the growth of Islam may become a threat. However there is no intention of the LGBT community wanting to outlaw Christianity.

Tell that to "The New Atheists." The "Brights" seem to want religion as dead their old Eugenics movement under the German Nazi's. But still death follows secularization en masse.

Where the heck is this coming from?

And religious doctrines are not to influence law makers.

So are you proclaiming that people of faith are to be disqualified from a democracy? It sure seems you are.

Not at all. We have many people of faith involved in our democracy. The point of secularism is that religious faith cannot be the basis for our (or your) legal system. Laws which apply to all the people, must have a secular rationale and so avoid establishing religion in law.

America was founded by many, many, many Christians with the incredible intelligence to see the dangers in religion and the intense foresight to know of the uncountable horrors inherent of a perfectly proclaimed atheistic government.

Which is why the government is separate from religion. Government is not atheistic; it is secular. It should not prohibit nor establish religion. Unlike the French revolution where the government tried to prohibit religion.

Now, how about agreeing that there is nothing bad or wrong, phobic or hateful, about Christians opposing homosexuals and the rise of celebrating homosexuality, including the redefining of "secular" marriage as same gendered being ill-fitting to Christian truth?

Here. I'll bold that question.

There is something bad about Christians imposing elements of their religious faith on a secular society. The end of Sunday closings, the repeal of prohibition, liberal divorce laws, toleration of idol worshiping religions, free speech, science education, women's rights and suffrage -- these are all elements of our secular society which were opposed to by those promoting Christian truth.

[99percentatheism]

well, I can see why you're on probation. What spew you waste your time on.

But once you offer up the "Jesus didn't exist" mumbo jumbo, you have just exited serious consideration.

Yours is canned comeback and little else.

Post something with some substance and less attempts to just insult and I'll toss them your way.

I'm keeping my pearls safe for now. No need to watch them get trampled in your present wallow.

Moderator Warning


There is no need to jibe another member for being on probation.

It is also uncivil to intimate another member is a swine.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

I apologize to all on the Forum.

[no evidence no belief]

There is no secular or theological challenge to be made that a "Christian marriage" isn't immutably a man and woman/husband and wife. Therefore, it should be a criminal act under current hate crimes laws, to accuse a Christian of hate, bigotry, or irrational . . ., if they assert the immutability of the structure of marriage as man and woman/husband and wife.

As Jesus proclaimed it in the Gospels and the writings reaffirm and define it so.

Why would anyone, religious or secularist, NOT support and affirm Christians adhering to the consistent and immutable Biblical teaching that a marriage is a man/husband and woman/wife?

Oh my. SO many things wrong with this post.

First. To accuse anybody of being a bigot is protected under our constitutional right to free speech and therefore cannot be criminalized. I get to call you a homophobe as much as I want.

Second, it's absurd to claim that Bible teachings are immutable. The Bible used to say that homosexuals should be stoned to death, that women shouldn't be allowed to teach or hold positions of authority, that witches should be burned alive, etc. Clearly these teachings are NOT immutable, or otherwise they'd be followed today by Christians.

Third, marriage has NOT been immutably defined as between one man and one woman in the Bible. Abraham, the patriarch of God's chosen people was a polygamist, as were dozens of prophets. God didn't just condone or forgive polygamy. He went out of his way to endorse it and encourage it. He specifically gave David wiveS (plural) as reward for his actions. God's definition of marriage in the OT is irrefutably polygamy. Then it changed to monogamy. So it's not immutable.

Bye bye.

[Bust Nak]

There is no secular or theological challenge to be made that a "Christian marriage" isn't immutably a man and woman/husband and wife. Therefore, it should be a criminal act under current hate crimes laws, to accuse a Christian of hate, bigotry, or irrational . . ., if they assert the immutability of the structure of marriage as man and woman/husband and wife.

Buzz, bait and switch spotted. You've changed from "Christian marriage" to "marriage" (bolded.)

As Jesus proclaimed it in the Gospels and the writings reaffirm and define it so.

What about one man and many women?

Why would anyone, religious or secularist, NOT support and affirm Christians adhering to the consistent and immutable Biblical teaching that a marriage is a man/husband and woman/wife?

Because "Christian marriage" is not suitible model for our secular society obviously.

my point is why label a Christian hateful for believing what Jesus and the writers of the New Testament wrote.

Loaded question. We label a Christian hateful for believing "Christian marriage" ought to be made the law.

And of course, charging a Christian with hate for being honest about that Christian marriage is immutably man and woman . . . is itself a hate crime.

I would accept that it could be a hate crime. Whether it is a hate crime or not depends on exactly what is said.

Now, how about agreeing that there is nothing bad or wrong, phobic or hateful, about Christians opposing homosexuals and the rise of celebrating homosexuality, including the redefining of "secular" marriage as same gendered being ill-fitting to Christian truth?

No can do. There is something wrong with Christians opposing same-sex marriage as being ill-fitting to Christian truth, namely, they oppose same-sex marriage in the secualr setting.

[Bust Nak]

Marriage has always been, first, cultural and religious...and THEN the government appends rights and responsibilities to it. When the government tells a church/belief system/culture that IT must change the way it defines marriage in order to accomadate the government view, it certainly has an impact on (and therefore 'has to do with') religion.

The right to freedom of religion is not the be all and end all of all rights. It is the government's job to resolve the conflicts of different rights.

...and before you get all strawman-y about this, this is NOT about forcing preachers to perform wedding ceremonies. It's about forcing religions to recognize marriages WITHIN THEIR BELIEF SYSTEM that are performed contrary to their doctrines.

You know...like forcing them to support such marriages with goods and services...

Now, the church that owns this school might be laughed at. It might be criticized...but nobody will argue that it's not the school's right (if church owned) to enforce such things.

I would. It's the the school's right to enforce all of those things. Namely homosexual people is a protected class, where as nudist isn't.

Ah, but enter the government redefinition of marriage, and suddenly, while the church can still tell the students that they have to dress modestly, not drink, not smoke and generally behave themselves, they must NOW allow people to live together if they are married in the eyes of the government--whether or not they are in the eyes of the church.

And rightly so.

The church which provides use of its facilities (for free or for a small fee) for weddings must now be forced to show that it approves of marriages it does not recognize by forcing said church to provide those facilities to weddings which violate doctrine.

As long as preachers are not forced to perform wedding ceremonies, that's fine.

The church which provides services (for a fee or free volunteer) to church members for any reason must now be forced to show support for marriages it does not recognize by forcing it to provide those services to weddings which violate doctrine.

As long those who violate doctrine are still member of that church, sure.

....and the thing is, all this is applied with considerable bigotry and discrimination; no Catholic church is required to allow divorced heterosexual couples to use facilities and services that the church doesn't want it to...but let this couple be GAY, and everybody will be forced to it.

If they have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21th century. So be it.

That's discrimination against heterosexual marriages, and puts the lie to all the bushwa about how the government isn't interfereing with the free exercise of religion.

The whole thing is.

It had always been a "lie" as it were. You never had total freedom to exercise religion.

Get government out of marriage altogether. Period.

So people can discriminate against homosexuals all they want? No thanks.

[no evidence no belief]

Get government out of marriage altogether. Period.

I actually kinda agree with that.

I think there should be two different words. One for the package of legal rights granted to any two consenting adults that choose to partner up (tax breaks, hospital visitations, green card applications,etc) and the other for the religious rituals that some people consider so important.

The government would be constitutionally required to grant that package of rights to any two consenting adults that requested it, and then the religious ceremonies could be left to the various churches.



This way if Diane wants to consider herself married to a corpse (within her religion) she can, and it has nothing to do with the fact that there is no package of legal rights associated with her necrophilic relationship.

If she wants to believe that within her religion a couple isn't married because one spouse is black and the other is white, or because they are gay, she is welcome to believe that, with the understanding that there is a wall of separation between her religious beliefs and the fact that those couple are nonetheless granted the same legal rights as any two consenting adults.


Legal marriage and religious marriage should be completely separate.

Legal marriage should have ZERO religious validity, and religious marriage should have ZERO legal validity.