Gay Rights - Your Thoughts

[Hemodoc]

Now, let's take it a step further. If you define gay rights as a civil right and no discrimination against that civil right, then yes, churches that refuse to marry gay couples could be prosecuted or sued for exercising their beliefs. That is the real opposition against redefining marriage. Since most American Christian churches are incorporated in their state, yes, all laws against discrimination if it included gay marriage could force pastors in churches to perform gay marriage against the teaching of the Bible.

That's just silly. The Catholic church doesn't allow for divorce. Where are all the lawsuits demanding that the church permit it? Oh, right. There aren't any. Jews don't eat shellfish. Where are the lawsuits demanding that they serve it at bar mitzvah receptions? Oh, right. None of those either. Muslims don't eat pork. Again, lawsuits? Nope. What happens within the church is the business of the church.

I live in Massachusetts where gay marriage has been the law of the land for about nine years and your spooky "gheys are gonna make you get gay married and consummate it on the altar" stories just aren't true. Specifically, there haven't been any lawsuits trying to "force pastors in churches to perform gay marriages," as you fear, and they've had plenty of time. There have, been, however, plenty of pastors who have welcomed gay marriage, and been perfectly happy to perform gay weddings. If they're okay with it, why aren't you?

Actually, it is not silly at all and in addition, you have not quoted the Catholic viewpoint on the issue accurately either. Lastly, churches have already been sued for this issue and lost tax exempt status because of it.

The Unintended Consequences of Gay Marriage

Just last year, two women filed a complaint in New Jersey because they were denied use of a pavilion for their civil union ceremony. The pavilion was owned by a Methodist ministry. It had been rented out for marriages, but the ministry refused to rent it for civil unions because it is a religious structure, and civil unions are not recognized in the United Methodist Church Book of Discipline. Due to the ministry's refusal to rent it for the lesbian ceremony, New Jersey revoked its tax-free status. . .

It may seem that legal recognition of civil unions or gay marriages is a trivial matter and one that respects the basic dignity of gay people. The unintended legal consequences that flow from such recognition, however, present a serious threat to religious liberty. Courts and legislatures need to consider these consequences before committing the nation to a policy with so many potential pitfalls.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resources/life-and-family/homosexuality/the-unintended-consequences-of-gay-marriage/

So, your statement is unfortunately inaccurate on several fronts.

[Hemodoc]

Actually my friend, you are quoting from the Old Testament law about not eating shrimp and a lot of other "unclean" creatures. However, if you read the New Testament, you will see that Christians are not under the law of the OT. I would suggest you actually get a bit more educated on what the Bible and Christianity is all about. If you still want to criticize, go ahead, but make sure that your own arguments are logical.

This just seems beyond the realm of logic. The Bible is supposed to be the word of the Christian god. The Christian god is supposed to be all-knowing. Oops. God was mistaken when he wrote the OT, so he fixed it all up and got it right in the NT.

Despite this piece of inconsistency, why aren't Christians more concerned about following ALL the edicts from their god, instead of the ones that they decide to follow? I just have a hard time wrapping my head around that.

Personally, I think most of the people posting here are nicer and more tolerant than the Christian god. That goes for their attitudes toward gays, other "tribes," and folks who are just different than they are.

 

Sorry, your comment shows a lack of understanding of the Bible. No inconsistency whatsoever. There was a purpose for the law, there is a purpose for the New Testament covenant as well. If you are interested in that discussion, send me a pm and I would be most happy to explain it detail, but no, not inconsistent whatsoever. The law still exists, Christians are under grace, not the law. This is what Jesus stated about the law during the Sermon on the Mount:

Matthew 5:17     ¶ Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18     For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19     Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

There are two different covenants, one of the Jews through the law, and one for the new dispensation for all that call upon the name of Jesus. The new covenant was prophesied by the prophet Jeremiah as well long before Jesus brought it to pass. It is all spelled out in the New Testament quite well. No inconsistencies whatsoever, just two different covenants with different people for a different purpose.

[iKAZ3D]

Actually my friend, you are quoting from the Old Testament law about not eating shrimp and a lot of other "unclean" creatures. However, if you read the New Testament, you will see that Christians are not under the law of the OT. I would suggest you actually get a bit more educated on what the Bible and Christianity is all about. If you still want to criticize, go ahead, but make sure that your own arguments are logical.

This just seems beyond the realm of logic. The Bible is supposed to be the word of the Christian god. The Christian god is supposed to be all-knowing. Oops. God was mistaken when he wrote the OT, so he fixed it all up and got it right in the NT.

Despite this piece of inconsistency, why aren't Christians more concerned about following ALL the edicts from their god, instead of the ones that they decide to follow? I just have a hard time wrapping my head around that.

Personally, I think most of the people posting here are nicer and more tolerant than the Christian god. That goes for their attitudes toward gays, other "tribes," and folks who are just different than they are.

 

Sorry, your comment shows a lack of understanding of the Bible. No inconsistency whatsoever. There was a purpose for the law, there is a purpose for the New Testament covenant as well. If you are interested in that discussion, send me a pm and I would be most happy to explain it detail, but no, not inconsistent whatsoever. The law still exists, Christians are under grace, not the law. This is what Jesus stated about the law during the Sermon on the Mount:

Matthew 5:17     ¶ Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18     For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19     Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

There are two different covenants, one of the Jews through the law, and one for the new dispensation for all that call upon the name of Jesus. The new covenant was prophesied by the prophet Jeremiah as well long before Jesus brought it to pass. It is all spelled out in the New Testament quite well. No inconsistencies whatsoever, just two different covenants with different people for a different purpose.

Your religion is flawed. Accept it.

[Hemodoc]

Actually my friend, you are quoting from the Old Testament law about not eating shrimp and a lot of other "unclean" creatures. However, if you read the New Testament, you will see that Christians are not under the law of the OT. I would suggest you actually get a bit more educated on what the Bible and Christianity is all about. If you still want to criticize, go ahead, but make sure that your own arguments are logical.

This just seems beyond the realm of logic. The Bible is supposed to be the word of the Christian god. The Christian god is supposed to be all-knowing. Oops. God was mistaken when he wrote the OT, so he fixed it all up and got it right in the NT.

Despite this piece of inconsistency, why aren't Christians more concerned about following ALL the edicts from their god, instead of the ones that they decide to follow? I just have a hard time wrapping my head around that.

Personally, I think most of the people posting here are nicer and more tolerant than the Christian god. That goes for their attitudes toward gays, other "tribes," and folks who are just different than they are.

 

Sorry, your comment shows a lack of understanding of the Bible. No inconsistency whatsoever. There was a purpose for the law, there is a purpose for the New Testament covenant as well. If you are interested in that discussion, send me a pm and I would be most happy to explain it detail, but no, not inconsistent whatsoever. The law still exists, Christians are under grace, not the law. This is what Jesus stated about the law during the Sermon on the Mount:

Matthew 5:17     ¶ Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18     For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19     Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

There are two different covenants, one of the Jews through the law, and one for the new dispensation for all that call upon the name of Jesus. The new covenant was prophesied by the prophet Jeremiah as well long before Jesus brought it to pass. It is all spelled out in the New Testament quite well. No inconsistencies whatsoever, just two different covenants with different people for a different purpose.

Your religion is flawed. Accept it.

No, not at all my friend. Here, from Jeremiah:

Jeremiah 31:31     ¶ Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32     Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
33     But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34     And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

That was 600 years before Jesus died on the cross and brought the new covenant to life.

In any case, the Bible does have the evidence to prove it is what is says it is, the Word of God. Yes, all knowing and all loving. If you don't wish to believe it, so be it.

[iKAZ3D]

Actually my friend, you are quoting from the Old Testament law about not eating shrimp and a lot of other "unclean" creatures. However, if you read the New Testament, you will see that Christians are not under the law of the OT. I would suggest you actually get a bit more educated on what the Bible and Christianity is all about. If you still want to criticize, go ahead, but make sure that your own arguments are logical.

This just seems beyond the realm of logic. The Bible is supposed to be the word of the Christian god. The Christian god is supposed to be all-knowing. Oops. God was mistaken when he wrote the OT, so he fixed it all up and got it right in the NT.

Despite this piece of inconsistency, why aren't Christians more concerned about following ALL the edicts from their god, instead of the ones that they decide to follow? I just have a hard time wrapping my head around that.

Personally, I think most of the people posting here are nicer and more tolerant than the Christian god. That goes for their attitudes toward gays, other "tribes," and folks who are just different than they are.

 

Sorry, your comment shows a lack of understanding of the Bible. No inconsistency whatsoever. There was a purpose for the law, there is a purpose for the New Testament covenant as well. If you are interested in that discussion, send me a pm and I would be most happy to explain it detail, but no, not inconsistent whatsoever. The law still exists, Christians are under grace, not the law. This is what Jesus stated about the law during the Sermon on the Mount:

Matthew 5:17     ¶ Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18     For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19     Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

There are two different covenants, one of the Jews through the law, and one for the new dispensation for all that call upon the name of Jesus. The new covenant was prophesied by the prophet Jeremiah as well long before Jesus brought it to pass. It is all spelled out in the New Testament quite well. No inconsistencies whatsoever, just two different covenants with different people for a different purpose.

Your religion is flawed. Accept it.

No, not at all my friend. Here, from Jeremiah:

Jeremiah 31:31     ¶ Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32     Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
33     But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34     And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

That was 600 years before Jesus died on the cross and brought the new covenant to life.

In any case, the Bible does have the evidence to prove it is what is says it is, the Word of God. Yes, all knowing and all loving. If you don't wish to believe it, so be it.

Let's play a game, prove your religion without quoting your religion.

[Hemodoc]

Actually my friend, you are quoting from the Old Testament law about not eating shrimp and a lot of other "unclean" creatures. However, if you read the New Testament, you will see that Christians are not under the law of the OT. I would suggest you actually get a bit more educated on what the Bible and Christianity is all about. If you still want to criticize, go ahead, but make sure that your own arguments are logical.

This just seems beyond the realm of logic. The Bible is supposed to be the word of the Christian god. The Christian god is supposed to be all-knowing. Oops. God was mistaken when he wrote the OT, so he fixed it all up and got it right in the NT.

Despite this piece of inconsistency, why aren't Christians more concerned about following ALL the edicts from their god, instead of the ones that they decide to follow? I just have a hard time wrapping my head around that.

Personally, I think most of the people posting here are nicer and more tolerant than the Christian god. That goes for their attitudes toward gays, other "tribes," and folks who are just different than they are.

 

Sorry, your comment shows a lack of understanding of the Bible. No inconsistency whatsoever. There was a purpose for the law, there is a purpose for the New Testament covenant as well. If you are interested in that discussion, send me a pm and I would be most happy to explain it detail, but no, not inconsistent whatsoever. The law still exists, Christians are under grace, not the law. This is what Jesus stated about the law during the Sermon on the Mount:

Matthew 5:17     ¶ Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18     For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19     Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

There are two different covenants, one of the Jews through the law, and one for the new dispensation for all that call upon the name of Jesus. The new covenant was prophesied by the prophet Jeremiah as well long before Jesus brought it to pass. It is all spelled out in the New Testament quite well. No inconsistencies whatsoever, just two different covenants with different people for a different purpose.

Your religion is flawed. Accept it.

No, not at all my friend. Here, from Jeremiah:

Jeremiah 31:31     ¶ Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32     Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
33     But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34     And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

That was 600 years before Jesus died on the cross and brought the new covenant to life.

In any case, the Bible does have the evidence to prove it is what is says it is, the Word of God. Yes, all knowing and all loving. If you don't wish to believe it, so be it.

Let's play a game, prove your religion without quoting your religion.

Sorry, my religion is not a game my friend. I became a Christian through the study of Bible prophecy. God has given all men the ability to reason, at least for those devoid of brain challenges. He has also given man His Holy Word that contains thousands of prophecies which could not be by chance alone. Josh McDowell a Christian evangelist working with college campuses, wrote a great book called Evidence that Demands a Verdict. He shows how the Bible could not be a false report.

http://www.amazon.com/Evidence-Demands-Questions-Challenging-Christians/dp/0785243631

One game I would advise you to consider as many have done before you, is to try and prove that the Bible is false on all of these issues. One who did that recently ended up writing a book called, The Case for Christ, by Lee Strobel.

A seasoned journalist chases down the biggest story in history--is there credible evidence that Jesus of Nazareth really is the son of god?

Retracing his own spiritual journey from atheism to faith, Lee Strobel, former legal editor of the Chicago Tribune, cross-examines a dozen experts with doctorates from schools like Cambridge, Princeton, and Brandeis who are recognized authorities in their own fields. Strobel challenges them with questions like: How reliable is the New Testament? Does evidence for Jesus exist outside the Bible? Is there any reason to believe the resurrection was an actual event?

Strobel's tough, point-blank questions make this Gold Medallion-winning book read like a captivating, fast-paced novel. But it's not fiction. It's a riveting quest for the truth about history's most compelling figure. What will your verdict be in The Case for Christ?

http://www.amazon.com/Case-Christ-Journalists-Personal-Investigation/dp/0310209307

Here is one other example from one of the principle founders of Harvard Law School and the father of modern law methods of examining legal evidence in a trial.

http://www.amazon.com/treatise-law-evidence-Simon-Greenleaf/dp/1240151160

He applied the rules of legal evidence to the gospel accounts in the Bible and was converted to Christianity.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesus/greenleaf.html

Many others have gone down that road only to find that the Bible DOES have the evidence to prove it is what is states it is. That is my story as well. So no thank you on your game, but I would challenge you to take up the game many before you have done only to come away understanding that the God of the Bible is real and His word is truth.

[iKAZ3D]

Actually my friend, you are quoting from the Old Testament law about not eating shrimp and a lot of other "unclean" creatures. However, if you read the New Testament, you will see that Christians are not under the law of the OT. I would suggest you actually get a bit more educated on what the Bible and Christianity is all about. If you still want to criticize, go ahead, but make sure that your own arguments are logical.

This just seems beyond the realm of logic. The Bible is supposed to be the word of the Christian god. The Christian god is supposed to be all-knowing. Oops. God was mistaken when he wrote the OT, so he fixed it all up and got it right in the NT.

Despite this piece of inconsistency, why aren't Christians more concerned about following ALL the edicts from their god, instead of the ones that they decide to follow? I just have a hard time wrapping my head around that.

Personally, I think most of the people posting here are nicer and more tolerant than the Christian god. That goes for their attitudes toward gays, other "tribes," and folks who are just different than they are.

 

Sorry, your comment shows a lack of understanding of the Bible. No inconsistency whatsoever. There was a purpose for the law, there is a purpose for the New Testament covenant as well. If you are interested in that discussion, send me a pm and I would be most happy to explain it detail, but no, not inconsistent whatsoever. The law still exists, Christians are under grace, not the law. This is what Jesus stated about the law during the Sermon on the Mount:

Matthew 5:17     ¶ Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18     For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19     Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

There are two different covenants, one of the Jews through the law, and one for the new dispensation for all that call upon the name of Jesus. The new covenant was prophesied by the prophet Jeremiah as well long before Jesus brought it to pass. It is all spelled out in the New Testament quite well. No inconsistencies whatsoever, just two different covenants with different people for a different purpose.

Your religion is flawed. Accept it.

No, not at all my friend. Here, from Jeremiah:

Jeremiah 31:31     ¶ Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32     Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
33     But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34     And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

That was 600 years before Jesus died on the cross and brought the new covenant to life.

In any case, the Bible does have the evidence to prove it is what is says it is, the Word of God. Yes, all knowing and all loving. If you don't wish to believe it, so be it.

Let's play a game, prove your religion without quoting your religion.

Sorry, my religion is not a game my friend. I became a Christian through the study of Bible prophecy. God has given all men the ability to reason, at least for those devoid of brain challenges. He has also given man His Holy Word that contains thousands of prophecies which could not be by chance alone. One author wrote a great book called Evidence that Demands a Verdict.

One game I would advise you to consider as many have done before you, is prove that the Bible is false on all of these issues. One who did that recently ended up writing a book called, The Case for Christ, by Lee Strobel.

A seasoned journalist chases down the biggest story in history--is there credible evidence that Jesus of Nazareth really is the son of god?

Retracing his own spiritual journey from atheism to faith, Lee Strobel, former legal editor of the Chicago Tribune, cross-examines a dozen experts with doctorates from schools like Cambridge, Princeton, and Brandeis who are recognized authorities in their own fields. Strobel challenges them with questions like: How reliable is the New Testament? Does evidence for Jesus exist outside the Bible? Is there any reason to believe the resurrection was an actual event?

Strobel's tough, point-blank questions make this Gold Medallion-winning book read like a captivating, fast-paced novel. But it's not fiction. It's a riveting quest for the truth about history's most compelling figure. What will your verdict be in The Case for Christ?

http://www.amazon.com/Case-Christ-Journalists-Personal-Investigation/dp/0310209307

Here is one other example from one of the principle founders of Harvard Law School and the father of modern law methods of examining legal evidence in a trial.

http://www.amazon.com/treatise-law-evidence-Simon-Greenleaf/dp/1240151160

He applied the rules of legal evidence to the gospel accounts in the Bible and was converted to Christianity.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesus/greenleaf.html

Many others have gone down that road only to find that the Bible DOES have the evidence to prove it is what is states it is. That is my story as well. So no thank you on your game, but I would challenge you to take up the game many before you have done only to come away understanding that the God of the Bible is real and His word is truth.

You can't prove something by quoting it. That's being biased.

You are extremely oblivious.


Evolution. Just saying.

[Hemodoc]

Actually my friend, you are quoting from the Old Testament law about not eating shrimp and a lot of other "unclean" creatures. However, if you read the New Testament, you will see that Christians are not under the law of the OT. I would suggest you actually get a bit more educated on what the Bible and Christianity is all about. If you still want to criticize, go ahead, but make sure that your own arguments are logical.

This just seems beyond the realm of logic. The Bible is supposed to be the word of the Christian god. The Christian god is supposed to be all-knowing. Oops. God was mistaken when he wrote the OT, so he fixed it all up and got it right in the NT.

Despite this piece of inconsistency, why aren't Christians more concerned about following ALL the edicts from their god, instead of the ones that they decide to follow? I just have a hard time wrapping my head around that.

Personally, I think most of the people posting here are nicer and more tolerant than the Christian god. That goes for their attitudes toward gays, other "tribes," and folks who are just different than they are.

 

Sorry, your comment shows a lack of understanding of the Bible. No inconsistency whatsoever. There was a purpose for the law, there is a purpose for the New Testament covenant as well. If you are interested in that discussion, send me a pm and I would be most happy to explain it detail, but no, not inconsistent whatsoever. The law still exists, Christians are under grace, not the law. This is what Jesus stated about the law during the Sermon on the Mount:

Matthew 5:17     ¶ Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18     For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19     Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

There are two different covenants, one of the Jews through the law, and one for the new dispensation for all that call upon the name of Jesus. The new covenant was prophesied by the prophet Jeremiah as well long before Jesus brought it to pass. It is all spelled out in the New Testament quite well. No inconsistencies whatsoever, just two different covenants with different people for a different purpose.

Your religion is flawed. Accept it.

No, not at all my friend. Here, from Jeremiah:

Jeremiah 31:31     ¶ Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32     Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
33     But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34     And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

That was 600 years before Jesus died on the cross and brought the new covenant to life.

In any case, the Bible does have the evidence to prove it is what is says it is, the Word of God. Yes, all knowing and all loving. If you don't wish to believe it, so be it.

Let's play a game, prove your religion without quoting your religion.

Sorry, my religion is not a game my friend. I became a Christian through the study of Bible prophecy. God has given all men the ability to reason, at least for those devoid of brain challenges. He has also given man His Holy Word that contains thousands of prophecies which could not be by chance alone. One author wrote a great book called Evidence that Demands a Verdict.

One game I would advise you to consider as many have done before you, is prove that the Bible is false on all of these issues. One who did that recently ended up writing a book called, The Case for Christ, by Lee Strobel.

A seasoned journalist chases down the biggest story in history--is there credible evidence that Jesus of Nazareth really is the son of god?

Retracing his own spiritual journey from atheism to faith, Lee Strobel, former legal editor of the Chicago Tribune, cross-examines a dozen experts with doctorates from schools like Cambridge, Princeton, and Brandeis who are recognized authorities in their own fields. Strobel challenges them with questions like: How reliable is the New Testament? Does evidence for Jesus exist outside the Bible? Is there any reason to believe the resurrection was an actual event?

Strobel's tough, point-blank questions make this Gold Medallion-winning book read like a captivating, fast-paced novel. But it's not fiction. It's a riveting quest for the truth about history's most compelling figure. What will your verdict be in The Case for Christ?

http://www.amazon.com/Case-Christ-Journalists-Personal-Investigation/dp/0310209307

Here is one other example from one of the principle founders of Harvard Law School and the father of modern law methods of examining legal evidence in a trial.

http://www.amazon.com/treatise-law-evidence-Simon-Greenleaf/dp/1240151160

He applied the rules of legal evidence to the gospel accounts in the Bible and was converted to Christianity.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesus/greenleaf.html

Many others have gone down that road only to find that the Bible DOES have the evidence to prove it is what is states it is. That is my story as well. So no thank you on your game, but I would challenge you to take up the game many before you have done only to come away understanding that the God of the Bible is real and His word is truth.

You can't prove something by quoting it. That's being biased.

You are extremely oblivious.


Evolution. Just saying.

Ahhhh, evolution you say. Well really venturing off topic, but yes, I became a born again Christian in November of 1994. I graduated from medical a few years before that and got a degree in Biology with minors in math and chemistry prior to going to medical school. I have a very good understanding of evolution and science in general. After I came to my belief in Jesus Christ and the true literal nature of the Bible, I did indeed address the issue of evolution personally.

In short, I read 8 books on evolution or about evolution only one of which was from a Christian apologist disagreeing with evolution. The other 7 books were written by evolution apologists including the most important one by Stephen J. Gould. Not sure if you understand that at the graduate level. NO ONE preaches Darwinism. That is deader than a door nail EXCEPT in public schools of course where it is still taught. But at the graduate level, it has been it lacks evidence since the fossil record DOES NOT show slow, gradual changes in organisms into other organisms. The fossil record instead shows continuity of a species over its entire course from when it appears to when it goes extinct. So all of those phyletic trees of life as quite simply false and known to be false.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Punctuated-equilibrium.svg

At the graduate level, they have a multitude of evolutionary theories tucked together by the title, NeoDarwinism. My sister got her PhD in Paleolimnology, which is the study of ancient lakes. She is quite noted in her accomplishments and has been interviewed on NPR and several prominent magazines. Yet, while she was in grad school taking graduate level courses on evolution, and while I was still in medical school, we were joking about the lack of evidence for any of the evolutionary theories. In fact, she made a joke that the only theory that has any evidence is creationism. Sadly, she doesn't remember the joking comment so many years ago, but since I became a born again Christian, my sisters sarcastic joke actually rings true.

In any case, after reading Stephen J. Gould lambaste his opponents, I applied his own standards of critique to his theory known as Punctuated Equilibrium and concluded his was just as lacking in real evidence as his competitors he stated were false and lacking evidence.

So, if you wish to argue evolution vs the Bible, start a new thread. That is one of my favorite topics to discuss.

[Emerson Burick]

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resources/life-and-family/homosexuality/the-unintended-consequences-of-gay-marriage/

Actually, the tax-free status of that organization remained (http://equalitymatters.org/factcheck/201210100001#claim4). If you're going to keep trying to make that argument, try basing it on something that actually happened, preferably in a state that has actually legalized gay marriage. Feel free to keep digging in the church newsletter scare column for more spooky stories, but you might want to google the rebuttals to those arguments to see how they come out.

I'll just leave things this way:

I have nine years of first-hand experience of what happens when gay marriage happens, which is nothing of note.
You have a bunch of "what if's," "could happens," "something kind of like that happened somewhere" assertions, urban legends, and religious tautologies.

[iKAZ3D]

Actually my friend, you are quoting from the Old Testament law about not eating shrimp and a lot of other "unclean" creatures. However, if you read the New Testament, you will see that Christians are not under the law of the OT. I would suggest you actually get a bit more educated on what the Bible and Christianity is all about. If you still want to criticize, go ahead, but make sure that your own arguments are logical.

This just seems beyond the realm of logic. The Bible is supposed to be the word of the Christian god. The Christian god is supposed to be all-knowing. Oops. God was mistaken when he wrote the OT, so he fixed it all up and got it right in the NT.

Despite this piece of inconsistency, why aren't Christians more concerned about following ALL the edicts from their god, instead of the ones that they decide to follow? I just have a hard time wrapping my head around that.

Personally, I think most of the people posting here are nicer and more tolerant than the Christian god. That goes for their attitudes toward gays, other "tribes," and folks who are just different than they are.

 

Sorry, your comment shows a lack of understanding of the Bible. No inconsistency whatsoever. There was a purpose for the law, there is a purpose for the New Testament covenant as well. If you are interested in that discussion, send me a pm and I would be most happy to explain it detail, but no, not inconsistent whatsoever. The law still exists, Christians are under grace, not the law. This is what Jesus stated about the law during the Sermon on the Mount:

Matthew 5:17     ¶ Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18     For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19     Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

There are two different covenants, one of the Jews through the law, and one for the new dispensation for all that call upon the name of Jesus. The new covenant was prophesied by the prophet Jeremiah as well long before Jesus brought it to pass. It is all spelled out in the New Testament quite well. No inconsistencies whatsoever, just two different covenants with different people for a different purpose.

Your religion is flawed. Accept it.

No, not at all my friend. Here, from Jeremiah:

Jeremiah 31:31     ¶ Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32     Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
33     But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34     And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

That was 600 years before Jesus died on the cross and brought the new covenant to life.

In any case, the Bible does have the evidence to prove it is what is says it is, the Word of God. Yes, all knowing and all loving. If you don't wish to believe it, so be it.

Let's play a game, prove your religion without quoting your religion.

Sorry, my religion is not a game my friend. I became a Christian through the study of Bible prophecy. God has given all men the ability to reason, at least for those devoid of brain challenges. He has also given man His Holy Word that contains thousands of prophecies which could not be by chance alone. One author wrote a great book called Evidence that Demands a Verdict.

One game I would advise you to consider as many have done before you, is prove that the Bible is false on all of these issues. One who did that recently ended up writing a book called, The Case for Christ, by Lee Strobel.

A seasoned journalist chases down the biggest story in history--is there credible evidence that Jesus of Nazareth really is the son of god?

Retracing his own spiritual journey from atheism to faith, Lee Strobel, former legal editor of the Chicago Tribune, cross-examines a dozen experts with doctorates from schools like Cambridge, Princeton, and Brandeis who are recognized authorities in their own fields. Strobel challenges them with questions like: How reliable is the New Testament? Does evidence for Jesus exist outside the Bible? Is there any reason to believe the resurrection was an actual event?

Strobel's tough, point-blank questions make this Gold Medallion-winning book read like a captivating, fast-paced novel. But it's not fiction. It's a riveting quest for the truth about history's most compelling figure. What will your verdict be in The Case for Christ?

http://www.amazon.com/Case-Christ-Journalists-Personal-Investigation/dp/0310209307

Here is one other example from one of the principle founders of Harvard Law School and the father of modern law methods of examining legal evidence in a trial.

http://www.amazon.com/treatise-law-evidence-Simon-Greenleaf/dp/1240151160

He applied the rules of legal evidence to the gospel accounts in the Bible and was converted to Christianity.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesus/greenleaf.html

Many others have gone down that road only to find that the Bible DOES have the evidence to prove it is what is states it is. That is my story as well. So no thank you on your game, but I would challenge you to take up the game many before you have done only to come away understanding that the God of the Bible is real and His word is truth.

You can't prove something by quoting it. That's being biased.

You are extremely oblivious.


Evolution. Just saying.

Ahhhh, evolution you say. Well really venturing off topic, but yes, I became a born again Christian in November of 1994. I graduated from medical a few years before that and got a degree in Biology, minos in math and chemistry prior to going to medical school. I have a very good understanding of evolution. After I came to my belief in Jesus Christ and the true literal nature of the Bible, I did indeed address the issue of evolution personally.

In short, I read 8 books on evolution or about evolution only one of which was from a Christian apologist. The other 7 books were written by evolution apologists including the most important one by Stephen J. Gould. Not sure if you understand that at the graduate level. NO ONE preaches Darwinism. That is deader than a door nail EXCEPT in public schools of course where it is still taught.

At the graduate level, they have a multitude of evolutionary theories tucked together by the title, NeoDarwinism. My sister got her PhD in Paleolimnology, which is the study of ancient lakes. She is quite noted in her accomplishments and has been interviewed on NPR and several prominent magazines. Yet, while she was in grad school taking graduate level courses on evolution, and while I was still in medical school, we were joking about the lack of evidence for any of the evolutionary theories. In fact, she made a joke that the only theory that has any evidence is creationism. Sadly, she doesn't remember the joking comment so many years ago, but since I became a born again Christian, my sisters sarcastic joke actually rings true.

In any case, after reading Stephen J. Gould lambaste his opponents, I applied his own standards of critique to his theory known as Punctuated Equilibrium and concluded his was just as lacking in real evidence as his competitors he stated were false and lacking evidence.

So, if you wish to argue evolution vs the Bible, start a new thread. That is one of my favorite topics to discuss.

No evidence to support EVOLUTION? Oh hell, you're one of THOSE Christians.

Darwinism is EVERYWHERE whether you Christians like it or not.

I'm not even going to bother trying to teach your tiny mind anymore. I don't want you to change your beliefs, I want you to stop spewing them. When you go "PM ME IF YOU WANT THE WORD OF GOD" horse shit, that's spewing, so don't bother attempting to counteract.




  Is there a block button?

[Hemodoc]

Actually my friend, you are quoting from the Old Testament law about not eating shrimp and a lot of other "unclean" creatures. However, if you read the New Testament, you will see that Christians are not under the law of the OT. I would suggest you actually get a bit more educated on what the Bible and Christianity is all about. If you still want to criticize, go ahead, but make sure that your own arguments are logical.

This just seems beyond the realm of logic. The Bible is supposed to be the word of the Christian god. The Christian god is supposed to be all-knowing. Oops. God was mistaken when he wrote the OT, so he fixed it all up and got it right in the NT.

Despite this piece of inconsistency, why aren't Christians more concerned about following ALL the edicts from their god, instead of the ones that they decide to follow? I just have a hard time wrapping my head around that.

Personally, I think most of the people posting here are nicer and more tolerant than the Christian god. That goes for their attitudes toward gays, other "tribes," and folks who are just different than they are.

 

Sorry, your comment shows a lack of understanding of the Bible. No inconsistency whatsoever. There was a purpose for the law, there is a purpose for the New Testament covenant as well. If you are interested in that discussion, send me a pm and I would be most happy to explain it detail, but no, not inconsistent whatsoever. The law still exists, Christians are under grace, not the law. This is what Jesus stated about the law during the Sermon on the Mount:

Matthew 5:17     ¶ Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18     For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19     Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

There are two different covenants, one of the Jews through the law, and one for the new dispensation for all that call upon the name of Jesus. The new covenant was prophesied by the prophet Jeremiah as well long before Jesus brought it to pass. It is all spelled out in the New Testament quite well. No inconsistencies whatsoever, just two different covenants with different people for a different purpose.

Your religion is flawed. Accept it.

No, not at all my friend. Here, from Jeremiah:

Jeremiah 31:31     ¶ Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32     Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
33     But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34     And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

That was 600 years before Jesus died on the cross and brought the new covenant to life.

In any case, the Bible does have the evidence to prove it is what is says it is, the Word of God. Yes, all knowing and all loving. If you don't wish to believe it, so be it.

Let's play a game, prove your religion without quoting your religion.

Sorry, my religion is not a game my friend. I became a Christian through the study of Bible prophecy. God has given all men the ability to reason, at least for those devoid of brain challenges. He has also given man His Holy Word that contains thousands of prophecies which could not be by chance alone. One author wrote a great book called Evidence that Demands a Verdict.

One game I would advise you to consider as many have done before you, is prove that the Bible is false on all of these issues. One who did that recently ended up writing a book called, The Case for Christ, by Lee Strobel.

A seasoned journalist chases down the biggest story in history--is there credible evidence that Jesus of Nazareth really is the son of god?

Retracing his own spiritual journey from atheism to faith, Lee Strobel, former legal editor of the Chicago Tribune, cross-examines a dozen experts with doctorates from schools like Cambridge, Princeton, and Brandeis who are recognized authorities in their own fields. Strobel challenges them with questions like: How reliable is the New Testament? Does evidence for Jesus exist outside the Bible? Is there any reason to believe the resurrection was an actual event?

Strobel's tough, point-blank questions make this Gold Medallion-winning book read like a captivating, fast-paced novel. But it's not fiction. It's a riveting quest for the truth about history's most compelling figure. What will your verdict be in The Case for Christ?

http://www.amazon.com/Case-Christ-Journalists-Personal-Investigation/dp/0310209307

Here is one other example from one of the principle founders of Harvard Law School and the father of modern law methods of examining legal evidence in a trial.

http://www.amazon.com/treatise-law-evidence-Simon-Greenleaf/dp/1240151160

He applied the rules of legal evidence to the gospel accounts in the Bible and was converted to Christianity.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesus/greenleaf.html

Many others have gone down that road only to find that the Bible DOES have the evidence to prove it is what is states it is. That is my story as well. So no thank you on your game, but I would challenge you to take up the game many before you have done only to come away understanding that the God of the Bible is real and His word is truth.

You can't prove something by quoting it. That's being biased.

You are extremely oblivious.


Evolution. Just saying.

Ahhhh, evolution you say. Well really venturing off topic, but yes, I became a born again Christian in November of 1994. I graduated from medical a few years before that and got a degree in Biology, minos in math and chemistry prior to going to medical school. I have a very good understanding of evolution. After I came to my belief in Jesus Christ and the true literal nature of the Bible, I did indeed address the issue of evolution personally.

In short, I read 8 books on evolution or about evolution only one of which was from a Christian apologist. The other 7 books were written by evolution apologists including the most important one by Stephen J. Gould. Not sure if you understand that at the graduate level. NO ONE preaches Darwinism. That is deader than a door nail EXCEPT in public schools of course where it is still taught.

At the graduate level, they have a multitude of evolutionary theories tucked together by the title, NeoDarwinism. My sister got her PhD in Paleolimnology, which is the study of ancient lakes. She is quite noted in her accomplishments and has been interviewed on NPR and several prominent magazines. Yet, while she was in grad school taking graduate level courses on evolution, and while I was still in medical school, we were joking about the lack of evidence for any of the evolutionary theories. In fact, she made a joke that the only theory that has any evidence is creationism. Sadly, she doesn't remember the joking comment so many years ago, but since I became a born again Christian, my sisters sarcastic joke actually rings true.

In any case, after reading Stephen J. Gould lambaste his opponents, I applied his own standards of critique to his theory known as Punctuated Equilibrium and concluded his was just as lacking in real evidence as his competitors he stated were false and lacking evidence.

So, if you wish to argue evolution vs the Bible, start a new thread. That is one of my favorite topics to discuss.

No evidence to support EVOLUTION? Oh hell, you're one of THOSE Christians.

Darwinism is EVERYWHERE whether you Christians like it or not.

I'm not even going to bother trying to teach your tiny mind anymore. I don't want you to change your beliefs, I want you to stop spewing them. When you go "PM ME IF YOU WANT THE WORD OF GOD" horse shit, that's spewing, so don't bother attempting to counteract.




  Is there a block button?

Nope, I am a medical doctor with B.S. in biology as noted above and I have spend years studying the issues of evolution before I became a Christian and actually more so since I became born again. If you are not interested in learning about the issues you are criticizing with out any understanding, then fair enough, not many folks take me up with that offer but some have and we have had very cordial discussions. Those that have ask questions, I give them answers. If they don't ask, I don't push it on them.

In any case, criticizing a religion you don't understand is not the way to go my friend.

Actually, Darwinism is dead at the graduate level exactly as I detailed above. Go learn about Neodarwinism and why NO ONE at the graduate level teaches Darwinism any longer, or let me state, shouldn't teach it since the fossil record disproves Darwins theory of Phyletic Gradualism. In any case, up to you. If you don't wish to learn what is taught at the graduate level so be it. But that is definitely putting your head in the sand and not seeking the truth my friend.

Here are a couple of links to that end:

http://www.nolanchart.com/article8784-a-scientific-consensus-darwinism-is-dead.html

http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/battson/stasis/2.html

So, if you want to learn something about the so called science of evolution, open a new thread on it and I will quote the modern day NeoDarminist apologists and let you look at the evidence at hand. But Darwin's theory of Phyletic Gradualism died academically over 50 years ago my friend. That is just the way it truly is. Too bad public schools don't teach that "fact" about Darwin's theories.

But if you want to believe I am some sort of Neanderthal ignorant Christian who doesn't understand the theories of evolution. So be it. Ignore button, go for it my friend.

[Hemodoc]

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resources/life-and-family/homosexuality/the-unintended-consequences-of-gay-marriage/

Actually, the tax-free status of that organization remained (http://equalitymatters.org/factcheck/201210100001#claim4). If you're going to keep trying to make that argument, try basing it on something that actually happened, preferably in a state that has actually legalized gay marriage. Feel free to keep digging in the church newsletter scare column for more spooky stories, but you might want to google the rebuttals to those arguments to see how they come out.

I'll just leave things this way:

I have nine years of first-hand experience of what happens when gay marriage happens, which is nothing of note.
You have a bunch of "what if's," "could happens," "something kind of like that happened somewhere" assertions, urban legends, and religious tautologies.

Once again, you are not portraying the official Catholic Church position on this issue. Here is an interesting article going into the details that will be important when the Supreme Court rules in June of this year.

http://www.ncregister.com/site/article/gay-marriage-or-religious-freedom-you-cant-have-both/

Lastly, you essentially accused me of lying on the N.J. case cited in the article in the other post. Well, here is an actual news account from Huffington Post of all source detailing the accuracy of my statement.

NJ rules against church group in gay rights case

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/30/nj-rules-against-church-g_n_154128.html

So, sorry, but you are wrong. It is not a trivial issue, there already are cases ruled against Christian churches on this issue and religious freedoms WILL be impinged by granting civil rights status to gay marriage. Sorry, but you are wrong on all accounts my friend.

[iKAZ3D]

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resources/life-and-family/homosexuality/the-unintended-consequences-of-gay-marriage/

Actually, the tax-free status of that organization remained (http://equalitymatters.org/factcheck/201210100001#claim4). If you're going to keep trying to make that argument, try basing it on something that actually happened, preferably in a state that has actually legalized gay marriage. Feel free to keep digging in the church newsletter scare column for more spooky stories, but you might want to google the rebuttals to those arguments to see how they come out.

I'll just leave things this way:

I have nine years of first-hand experience of what happens when gay marriage happens, which is nothing of note.
You have a bunch of "what if's," "could happens," "something kind of like that happened somewhere" assertions, urban legends, and religious tautologies.

Once again, you are not portraying the official Catholic Church position on this issue. Here is an interesting article going into the details that will be important when the Supreme Court rules in June of this year.

http://www.ncregister.com/site/article/gay-marriage-or-religious-freedom-you-cant-have-both/

Lastly, you essentially accused me of lying on the N.J. case cited in the article in the other post. Well, here is an actual news account from Huffington Post of all source detailing the accuracy of my statement.

NJ rules against church group in gay rights case

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/30/nj-rules-against-church-g_n_154128.html

So, sorry, but you are wrong. It is not a trivial issue, there already are cases ruled against Christian churches on this issue and religious freedoms WILL be impinged by granting civil rights status to gay marriage. Sorry, but you are wrong on all accounts my friend.

You cannot 'prove' to me your god exists without using examples of writings. We prove things in this world with our five senses.

Sight. Sound. Touch. Taste. Hearing.

When I lick gods face and touch his beard, then I'll believe you.

[Hemodoc]

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resources/life-and-family/homosexuality/the-unintended-consequences-of-gay-marriage/

Actually, the tax-free status of that organization remained (http://equalitymatters.org/factcheck/201210100001#claim4). If you're going to keep trying to make that argument, try basing it on something that actually happened, preferably in a state that has actually legalized gay marriage. Feel free to keep digging in the church newsletter scare column for more spooky stories, but you might want to google the rebuttals to those arguments to see how they come out.

I'll just leave things this way:

I have nine years of first-hand experience of what happens when gay marriage happens, which is nothing of note.
You have a bunch of "what if's," "could happens," "something kind of like that happened somewhere" assertions, urban legends, and religious tautologies.

Once again, you are not portraying the official Catholic Church position on this issue. Here is an interesting article going into the details that will be important when the Supreme Court rules in June of this year.

http://www.ncregister.com/site/article/gay-marriage-or-religious-freedom-you-cant-have-both/

Lastly, you essentially accused me of lying on the N.J. case cited in the article in the other post. Well, here is an actual news account from Huffington Post of all source detailing the accuracy of my statement.

NJ rules against church group in gay rights case

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/30/nj-rules-against-church-g_n_154128.html

So, sorry, but you are wrong. It is not a trivial issue, there already are cases ruled against Christian churches on this issue and religious freedoms WILL be impinged by granting civil rights status to gay marriage. Sorry, but you are wrong on all accounts my friend.

You cannot 'prove' to me your god exists without using examples of writings. We prove things in this world with our five senses.

Sight. Sound. Touch. Taste. Hearing.

When I lick gods face and touch his beard, then I'll believe you.

hmmm, that story was already told, Doubting Thomas is how he is known today. But in any case, I don't think God will let you lick His face and touch His beard, but He does promise all men will stand before Him. I wouldn't wait until that moment to be convinced, but to each his own.

[iKAZ3D]

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resources/life-and-family/homosexuality/the-unintended-consequences-of-gay-marriage/

Actually, the tax-free status of that organization remained (http://equalitymatters.org/factcheck/201210100001#claim4). If you're going to keep trying to make that argument, try basing it on something that actually happened, preferably in a state that has actually legalized gay marriage. Feel free to keep digging in the church newsletter scare column for more spooky stories, but you might want to google the rebuttals to those arguments to see how they come out.

I'll just leave things this way:

I have nine years of first-hand experience of what happens when gay marriage happens, which is nothing of note.
You have a bunch of "what if's," "could happens," "something kind of like that happened somewhere" assertions, urban legends, and religious tautologies.

Once again, you are not portraying the official Catholic Church position on this issue. Here is an interesting article going into the details that will be important when the Supreme Court rules in June of this year.

http://www.ncregister.com/site/article/gay-marriage-or-religious-freedom-you-cant-have-both/

Lastly, you essentially accused me of lying on the N.J. case cited in the article in the other post. Well, here is an actual news account from Huffington Post of all source detailing the accuracy of my statement.

NJ rules against church group in gay rights case

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/30/nj-rules-against-church-g_n_154128.html

So, sorry, but you are wrong. It is not a trivial issue, there already are cases ruled against Christian churches on this issue and religious freedoms WILL be impinged by granting civil rights status to gay marriage. Sorry, but you are wrong on all accounts my friend.

You cannot 'prove' to me your god exists without using examples of writings. We prove things in this world with our five senses.

Sight. Sound. Touch. Taste. Hearing.

When I lick gods face and touch his beard, then I'll believe you.

hmmm, that story was already told, Doubting Thomas is how he is known today. But in any case, I don't think God will let you lick His face and touch His beard, but He does promise all men will stand before Him. I wouldn't wait until that moment to be convinced, but to each his own.

Well, I won't stand before something that is not there.

[Hemodoc]

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resources/life-and-family/homosexuality/the-unintended-consequences-of-gay-marriage/

Actually, the tax-free status of that organization remained (http://equalitymatters.org/factcheck/201210100001#claim4). If you're going to keep trying to make that argument, try basing it on something that actually happened, preferably in a state that has actually legalized gay marriage. Feel free to keep digging in the church newsletter scare column for more spooky stories, but you might want to google the rebuttals to those arguments to see how they come out.

I'll just leave things this way:

I have nine years of first-hand experience of what happens when gay marriage happens, which is nothing of note.
You have a bunch of "what if's," "could happens," "something kind of like that happened somewhere" assertions, urban legends, and religious tautologies.

Once again, you are not portraying the official Catholic Church position on this issue. Here is an interesting article going into the details that will be important when the Supreme Court rules in June of this year.

http://www.ncregister.com/site/article/gay-marriage-or-religious-freedom-you-cant-have-both/

Lastly, you essentially accused me of lying on the N.J. case cited in the article in the other post. Well, here is an actual news account from Huffington Post of all source detailing the accuracy of my statement.

NJ rules against church group in gay rights case

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/30/nj-rules-against-church-g_n_154128.html

So, sorry, but you are wrong. It is not a trivial issue, there already are cases ruled against Christian churches on this issue and religious freedoms WILL be impinged by granting civil rights status to gay marriage. Sorry, but you are wrong on all accounts my friend.

You cannot 'prove' to me your god exists without using examples of writings. We prove things in this world with our five senses.

Sight. Sound. Touch. Taste. Hearing.

When I lick gods face and touch his beard, then I'll believe you.

hmmm, that story was already told, Doubting Thomas is how he is known today. But in any case, I don't think God will let you lick His face and touch His beard, but He does promise all men will stand before Him. I wouldn't wait until that moment to be convinced, but to each his own.

Well, I won't stand before something that is not there.

Hmmmm, well all I can say is good luck my friend.

Take care,









EDITED- Fixed quote tag error- kitkatz, Moderator

[iKAZ3D]

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resources/life-and-family/homosexuality/the-unintended-consequences-of-gay-marriage/

Actually, the tax-free status of that organization remained (http://equalitymatters.org/factcheck/201210100001#claim4). If you're going to keep trying to make that argument, try basing it on something that actually happened, preferably in a state that has actually legalized gay marriage. Feel free to keep digging in the church newsletter scare column for more spooky stories, but you might want to google the rebuttals to those arguments to see how they come out.

I'll just leave things this way:

I have nine years of first-hand experience of what happens when gay marriage happens, which is nothing of note.
You have a bunch of "what if's," "could happens," "something kind of like that happened somewhere" assertions, urban legends, and religious tautologies.

Once again, you are not portraying the official Catholic Church position on this issue. Here is an interesting article going into the details that will be important when the Supreme Court rules in June of this year.

http://www.ncregister.com/site/article/gay-marriage-or-religious-freedom-you-cant-have-both/

Lastly, you essentially accused me of lying on the N.J. case cited in the article in the other post. Well, here is an actual news account from Huffington Post of all source detailing the accuracy of my statement.

NJ rules against church group in gay rights case

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/30/nj-rules-against-church-g_n_154128.html

So, sorry, but you are wrong. It is not a trivial issue, there already are cases ruled against Christian churches on this issue and religious freedoms WILL be impinged by granting civil rights status to gay marriage. Sorry, but you are wrong on all accounts my friend.

You cannot 'prove' to me your god exists without using examples of writings. We prove things in this world with our five senses.

Sight. Sound. Touch. Taste. Hearing.

When I lick gods face and touch his beard, then I'll believe you.

hmmm, that story was already told, Doubting Thomas is how he is known today. But in any case, I don't think God will let you lick His face and touch His beard, but He does promise all men will stand before Him. I wouldn't wait until that moment to be convinced, but to each his own.

Well, I won't stand before something that is not there.

Hmmmm, well all I can say is good luck my friend.

Take care,

Good luck not believing? There is no luck in that. There is only joy.

Religion only brings conflict and hatred.

And religious wars.

Pray all you want, from my experience, it does jack shit. Why else are we suffering and sitting her griping on a site called iHateDialysis. What kind of loving father is that? Thanks, God. Explain your loving father.And don't spew the "Everyone has a purpose" horse shit.

[Hemodoc]

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resources/life-and-family/homosexuality/the-unintended-consequences-of-gay-marriage/

Actually, the tax-free status of that organization remained (http://equalitymatters.org/factcheck/201210100001#claim4). If you're going to keep trying to make that argument, try basing it on something that actually happened, preferably in a state that has actually legalized gay marriage. Feel free to keep digging in the church newsletter scare column for more spooky stories, but you might want to google the rebuttals to those arguments to see how they come out.

I'll just leave things this way:

I have nine years of first-hand experience of what happens when gay marriage happens, which is nothing of note.
You have a bunch of "what if's," "could happens," "something kind of like that happened somewhere" assertions, urban legends, and religious tautologies.

Once again, you are not portraying the official Catholic Church position on this issue. Here is an interesting article going into the details that will be important when the Supreme Court rules in June of this year.

http://www.ncregister.com/site/article/gay-marriage-or-religious-freedom-you-cant-have-both/

Lastly, you essentially accused me of lying on the N.J. case cited in the article in the other post. Well, here is an actual news account from Huffington Post of all source detailing the accuracy of my statement.

NJ rules against church group in gay rights case

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/30/nj-rules-against-church-g_n_154128.html

So, sorry, but you are wrong. It is not a trivial issue, there already are cases ruled against Christian churches on this issue and religious freedoms WILL be impinged by granting civil rights status to gay marriage. Sorry, but you are wrong on all accounts my friend.

You cannot 'prove' to me your god exists without using examples of writings. We prove things in this world with our five senses.

Sight. Sound. Touch. Taste. Hearing.

When I lick gods face and touch his beard, then I'll believe you.

hmmm, that story was already told, Doubting Thomas is how he is known today. But in any case, I don't think God will let you lick His face and touch His beard, but He does promise all men will stand before Him. I wouldn't wait until that moment to be convinced, but to each his own.

Well, I won't stand before something that is not there.

Hmmmm, well all I can say is good luck my friend.

Take care,

Good luck not believing? There is no luck in that. There is only joy.

Religion only brings conflict and hatred.

And religious wars.

Pray all you want, from my experience, it does jack shit. Why else are we suffering and sitting her griping on a site called iHateDialysis. What kind of loving father is that? Thanks, God. Explain your loving father.And don't spew the "Everyone has a purpose" horse shit.

No thanks, if you wish to find Him, that is something you must do on your own. If you wish to know where to begin, send me a pm.

Take care,

[willowtreewren]

Actually, Darwinism is dead at the graduate level exactly as I detailed above. Go learn about Neodarwinism and why NO ONE at the graduate level teaches Darwinism any longer, or let me state, shouldn't teach it since the fossil record disproves Darwins theory of Phyletic Gradualism. In any case, up to you. If you don't wish to learn what is taught at the graduate level so be it. But that is definitely putting your head in the sand and not seeking the truth my friend.

 

I'm surprised you couldn't hear my snort all the way in California. Once again you are trying to distort the science. I just returned from dinner with an award winning evolutionary biologist, who would take serious issue with your misrepresentation of the importance of evolution by reframing the terms. Shame on you. You are either deliberately trying to mislead (some would call that lying), or truly befuddled.

Either way, neither stance really relates to the issue of gay marriage at hand. 

Another question: If the Christian god is so against homosexuality, why did he create so many species that engage in it? Just seems kind of sloppy of such a powerful god.

[iKAZ3D]

Actually, Darwinism is dead at the graduate level exactly as I detailed above. Go learn about Neodarwinism and why NO ONE at the graduate level teaches Darwinism any longer, or let me state, shouldn't teach it since the fossil record disproves Darwins theory of Phyletic Gradualism. In any case, up to you. If you don't wish to learn what is taught at the graduate level so be it. But that is definitely putting your head in the sand and not seeking the truth my friend.

 

I'm surprised you couldn't hear my snort all the way in California. Once again you are trying to distort the science. I just returned from dinner with an award winning evolutionary biologist, who would take serious issue with your misrepresentation of the importance of evolution by reframing the terms. Shame on you. You are either deliberately trying to mislead (some would call that lying), or truly befuddled.

Either way, neither stance really relates to the issue of gay marriage at hand. 

Another question: If the Christian god is so against homosexuality, why did he create so many species that engage in it? Just seems kind of sloppy of such a powerful god.

Yup.

[Hemodoc]

Actually, Darwinism is dead at the graduate level exactly as I detailed above. Go learn about Neodarwinism and why NO ONE at the graduate level teaches Darwinism any longer, or let me state, shouldn't teach it since the fossil record disproves Darwins theory of Phyletic Gradualism. In any case, up to you. If you don't wish to learn what is taught at the graduate level so be it. But that is definitely putting your head in the sand and not seeking the truth my friend.

 

I'm surprised you couldn't hear my snort all the way in California. Once again you are trying to distort the science. I just returned from dinner with an award winning evolutionary biologist, who would take serious issue with your misrepresentation of the importance of evolution by reframing the terms. Shame on you. You are either deliberately trying to mislead (some would call that lying), or truly befuddled.

Either way, neither stance really relates to the issue of gay marriage at hand. 

Another question: If the Christian god is so against homosexuality, why did he create so many species that engage in it? Just seems kind of sloppy of such a powerful god.

Not at all. NeoDarwinisim came into vogue  about 50 years ago in response to the lack of evidence for Phyletic gradualism. That is current fact. I will take it one step further, not only do serious evolutionary biologist teach that classic Darwinism is dead, but many today contend that NeoDarwinism is dead as well. So, no, I have not misrepresented any scientific evidence.

If you don't trust me or my sources, go read Stephen J. Gould who has one of the leading NeoDarwinistic theory  called Punctuated Equilibrium. Here is a quote of what he said at one point about classic Darwin evolutionary theory. The reason for Gould's treatise, the lack of evidence that Darwin said they would find if his theory was correct. In other words, the fossil record does not support Phyletic Gradualism, instead it shows stasis of species and no intermediate species that is predicted by Darwin's theory.

http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/classictexts/eldredge.pdf

To quote Gould in his summation: "Speciation is a rare and difficult event that punctuates a system in homeostatic equilibrium."

In any case, go back and talk to your professor of evolution about all of the NeoDarwinistic theories and why the paleontology evidence found in the fossil record has lead modern evolutionists to almost uniformly abandon Phyletic gradualism.  Once again, don't take my word for it, study it for yourself, but I have indeed summarized very briefly current graduate levels philosophy of Darwin's theory of evolution.

Here is a Yahoo answer to your question if you don't wish to forage through all of the evolutionary jargon in science articles.


The fossil record provide little evidence for phyletic gradualism.    < Prev  Next > 
Posted By:   
ssethiadi@...
Tue Feb 14, 2012 4:04 am  |
Options



Stephen Jay Gould admitted that the fossil record do not provide evidence
for phyletic gradualism.

See below. That was in 1981. Is there any progress in 2012?

Regards. Stanley.

"The main problem with such phyletic gradualism is that the fossil record
provides so little evidence for it. Very rarely can we trace the gradual
transformation of one entire species into another through a finely graded
sequence of intermediary forms".

(Gould, S.J. ; luria ; SE and Singer ; S. in " A view of Life", 1981 p.
641).

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/27682

[Hemodoc]

Actually, Darwinism is dead at the graduate level exactly as I detailed above. Go learn about Neodarwinism and why NO ONE at the graduate level teaches Darwinism any longer, or let me state, shouldn't teach it since the fossil record disproves Darwins theory of Phyletic Gradualism. In any case, up to you. If you don't wish to learn what is taught at the graduate level so be it. But that is definitely putting your head in the sand and not seeking the truth my friend.

 

I'm surprised you couldn't hear my snort all the way in California. Once again you are trying to distort the science. I just returned from dinner with an award winning evolutionary biologist, who would take serious issue with your misrepresentation of the importance of evolution by reframing the terms. Shame on you. You are either deliberately trying to mislead (some would call that lying), or truly befuddled.

Either way, neither stance really relates to the issue of gay marriage at hand. 

Another question: If the Christian god is so against homosexuality, why did he create so many species that engage in it? Just seems kind of sloppy of such a powerful god.

Yup.

NOPE!

[Emerson Burick]

So, sorry, but you are wrong. It is not a trivial issue, there already are cases ruled against Christian churches on this issue and religious freedoms WILL be impinged by granting civil rights status to gay marriage. Sorry, but you are wrong on all accounts my friend.

I'm so sorry that you can't find anything to support your argument other than an irrelevant lawsuit. Let me spell it out in simple terms: “When you open your doors to the public, you can’t treat same-sex couples differently.”(http://www.aclu-nj.org/news/2012/01/13/judge-rules-in-favor-of-same-sex-couple-in-discrimination-case/) If you don't want to open your door to the public, you don't have to. Not so difficult to understand.

In the meanwhile, your failure (again!) to demonstrate any harm that has actually befallen Massachusetts just goes to show that your assertion is wrong. And if you're wrong about that one thing, what else might you be wrong about?

[Emerson Burick]

I'm surprised you couldn't hear my snort all the way in California. Once again you are trying to distort the science. I just returned from dinner with an award winning evolutionary biologist, who would take serious issue with your misrepresentation of the importance of evolution by reframing the terms. Shame on you. You are either deliberately trying to mislead (some would call that lying), or truly befuddled.

More to the point, as someone who professes to be a doctor, he should be seeing evolution in action every single day. Gee, why is that drug not working as well any more? If he can't extrapolate what's in front of his eyes out a couple of hundred million years of evolution he's not much of a researcher. But we already knew that from his description of his reading material.

Another question: If the Christian god is so against homosexuality, why did he create so many species that engage in it? Just seems kind of sloppy of such a powerful god.

I think Hemodoc believes in the "bad computer programmer" kind of God--the kind who creates, badly, then throws a hissy fit when things don't work as expected.

[iKAZ3D]

I'm surprised you couldn't hear my snort all the way in California. Once again you are trying to distort the science. I just returned from dinner with an award winning evolutionary biologist, who would take serious issue with your misrepresentation of the importance of evolution by reframing the terms. Shame on you. You are either deliberately trying to mislead (some would call that lying), or truly befuddled.

More to the point, as someone who professors to be a doctor, he should be seeing evolution in action every single day. Gee, why is that drug not working as well any more? If he can't extrapolate what's in front of his eyes out a couple of hundred million years of evolution he's not much of a researcher. But we already knew that from his description of his reading material.

Another question: If the Christian god is so against homosexuality, why did he create so many species that engage in it? Just seems kind of sloppy of such a powerful god.

I think Hemodoc believes in the "bad computer programmer" kind of God--the kinds who creates, badly, then throws a hissy fit when things don't work as expected.

 

Exactly!