Yes,
Lets all hear it for Mr. Rush Limbaugh and give a big round of congratulations on his THIRD failed marriage.

I--I really do not even think marriage is a right. Marriage is a responsibility. It's not a gift that somebody says, Hey, now it's time for you to get married. It's our bestowal to you.' It's--it's a--it's a commitment that you make and it is a responsibility that you accept. And it's--to--to be--to be tossed around in this manner is to devalue it, which is to devalue the fundamental building block of our society.

- Rush Limbaugh

So lets see, he has lost any validity to speak on drug use, military service and now family values...
GG oh shining star of the Neo Conservatives

Mr and Mrs. Clinton send their condolences :rollin

Conservatives often tell us that gay marriage degrades the institution of marriage. I'd say after your 3rd "til death do us part" you have no right to speak on such things.

Boy isnt this an issue that has been beaten to death. Its a religious based ideal. Lets get over it being anything else. Straight people can treat marriage like dirt cause its their God given right. Gay people wanna give a crack at it and they scream NO GOD HATES YOU cause thats all they can say.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>NO GOD HATES YOU<hr></blockquote>

Or "God forbids it" but yeah, sadoequinecrophilia. We've also found Rush to be a pompous windbag. Where's that "This is the room of people who care" pic?

sadoequinecrophilia

That's a new one.

The sexual preference of pleasure through pain with dead horses?

Bleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee...........

--Cen

I think he meant "beating a dead horse" but yeah... he did say beating off to a dead horse's pain.

Its not a religious matter at all. To say it is a religious matter, would also mean that we should follow the bible to the T and make it illegal to ever marry after having a divorce ... which is against the 10 Commandments, and gay marrage is not.

Lets also mention that it is a far greater sin, according to the bible ... lying, cheating, stealing -- so basically everyone who's played to this level of Everquest is gonna go to hell.

Eating meat on a friday is a big one, smoking and drug use ... even using alcohol or eating to excess isn't treating ones body like a temple. A man with long hair violates the "natural order" and thus violates nature, also a pretty big sin. Even looking at a guy/girl and wanting to have sex with them without even touching them is a far worse sin than homosexuality.

So lets actually open the book before commenting on it ... or realize that its all open for interpretation, and even better, that EVERYONE will sin but god forgives us of our sins if we ask him nicely. Homosexual marriage should be illegal the day they make it illegal for men to have long hair, and not a moment sooner.

forget religious reasons let just take the fact 5 thousand years of marriage,purpose of marriage is to have children,if you cant have them bio together there no reason to be married!And its a small % trying to force what they want on a big % of people!

Eating meat on a friday is a big one

Is it? I thought that was a creation of the Catholic church and the requirement has since been lifted.

forget religious reasons let just take the fact 5 thousand years of marriage,purpose of marriage is to have children,if you cant have them bio together there no reason to be married!
The purpose of marriage is what married people make it. You don't need to be married to have children; it just helps with the legalese and, for much of human history, with societal acceptance.
[/quote]And its a small % trying to force what they want on a big % of people![/quote]
Nothing is being forced on the "big %" of people. It wouldn't impact anyone at all and would increase the happiness of a fairly significant portion of our population. Rather, the "big %" wishes to force their views on the "small %," which does have an impact.

Kelraz, I think it naive to say that the major objections to gay marriage are not fueled by religious belief. Indeed, few bother to hide the reasons for their objections.

The meat on friday thing may be a mistake, I recently watched Dogma and recall "I remember when eating meat on a friday was a hellworthy offense ..."
The rest did come out of the bible though, I looked those suckers up :)

I never suggested that it isn't a religious reason, just that it shouldn't be ... but the only excuse for someone to use it as a solid argument is from someone truly ignorant of the bible or as the title of this thread would suggest, a hypocrite, would use a religious argument as the sole reason why gay marriage shouldn't be legal, the bulk of the opponents probably just think that holding a guys hand is icky.

*edit* Mispelled a word, oops!

You misspelled "mispelled," too. <g>

haha, I'll leave that one.

bigest % win,that just way our system woks!

Right... That's why the "big %" has the little % of the wealth and power, while the "little %" tells you what to do.

forget religious reasons let just take the fact 5 thousand years of marriage,purpose of marriage is to have children,if you cant have them bio together there no reason to be married!

By that logic, people that are infertile should not be allowed to marry.

ok let me refrase if you have a two people who have the sexual equipment to make children!

ok let me refrase if you have a two people who have the sexual equipment to make children!

http://www.biosource-tech.com/images/photos/test_tube_hand.jpg

+

http://www.aperfectworld.org/clipart/healthcare/needle.gif

+

http://www.drmalpani.com/book/images/25f_assistedhatching.jpg
=

http://www.ugrad.cs.jhu.edu/~davidko/testtubejade.jpg

For a happy lesbian couple!

( these are all images from google, the sad part is I couldn't find a picture of a happy lesbian couple :( )

Not to mention the millions of children adopted each year by lesbian couples ... which thank god, or else those children would be rotting away in some orphanage or put to death.

someone plz link Talid that picture of Taino and his "friend" ;)

I'd kill for an "original" collections of ALL the writings that were being considered for the bible. Don't forget, what people read today was slowly edited over two thousand years.

Think about it. It was man, not God, that decided what books were appropriate, what wording would be used, not to mention the constant translation.

Ever see that exercise where they get one person in a room to tell someone else the idea, and then to pass it around until it hits the last person in the room? 9 out of 10 times the message is WAY different than what it started out to be. Now multiply this method by millions, and then throw some different languages in there (aramaic (sp) to greek, greek to latin, latin to french/english/german just to simplify things) and you've got the recipe for one confused flock.

Then you can get into the silly words the RC church put in like not marrying and celebacy. These were not due to being holy or anything, but instead prevented it's priests from giving away church lands to their offspring. The RC church is probably the richest institution out there, and with good reason LOL.

Anyhow, it's early and I'm still not on all cylinders. Enjoy!

I'd kill for an "original" collections of ALL the writings that were being considered for the bible. Don't forget, what people read today was slowly edited over two thousand years.
Binuven, you might spend some time at Peter Kirby's site (http://home.earthlink.net/~kirby/index.html). Clicking no the relevant "early writings" links will hook you up with just about everything available to modern scholarship, canonical and noncanonical works not lost to the sands of time. Included are writings from other sources contemporary to the founding of the early church. Seeing the many apocryphal works that were not included (or included then discarded) from the early canon puts a new perspective on the development of the Bible(s) of today.

Every single time I read a "Should have been in the Bible text" it doesnt change anything. People can haggle over whose father and brother was related to whom but it really changes nothing.

If you look to the Bible for some set of religious rules that will make you feel better about yourself then the current one is just fine for that. If you are looking to the Bible to hear from God then the current one is just fine for that as well.

If you dont believe why bother making up reasons to, just say I dont believe.

I like history. The Bible is one of the best history books out there. But my point is.....how much has been lost over time.

I still remember reading Anne Rice's Servant of the Bones when Azrael picks up the bible in present day and he's like "Where's the rest of it?".

Sure it's fiction, but it kinda makes you think.

No, I don't take the bible literally, but yes I agree it's a guide. I'm also saying that it is a good book, both story wise and morality wise. But don't you just wonder, what if?

Hehe, sorta reminds me of that episode of Red Dwarf where they found the missing first page of the bible....."All persons in this book are fictitous and are not meant to represent any real persons...etc...etc..." I laughed so hard I nearly pissed myself. :rollin

And great links Thormir, many thanks, I love stuff like this hehe. :D

Now if I could only get a 24 hour tour of the Vatican vaults, I'd LOVE to see what they've got squirreled away down there....

ok let me refrase if you have a two people who have the sexual equipment to make children!

That's still the same thing, Elren. If you're infertile, you either don't have the sexual equipment required to have children, or it's not working. The most common cause of infertility in males is azoospermia, the lack of living sperm. If you don't have sperm, you don't have the "sexual equipment to make children." Just having a penis and a vagina in a relationship doesn't provide the means for natural sexual reproduction. There are other bodily chemicals and organs that provide for the process as well. Your logic is flawed; try to explain yourself out of this one, but it simply won't work.

Ok new twist,science has proven its best for children to live under a mother and a father for there development and nurturing.This is the bases of marriage is children and if the don't have a mother and a father its isn't good for the children ,this has been proven threw many studies!

Ok new twist,science has proven its best for children to live under a mother and a father for there development and nurturing.This is the bases of marriage is children and if the don't have a mother and a father its isn't good for the children ,this has been proven threw many studies!

Provide links or shutup.

SCIENCE HAS PROVEN ELREN IS A RETARD!@!

it means about the same as that drivel you just posted.

TALID WHAT PART OF "science has proven" DON"T YOU GET?!?! ARE YOU CALLING ELREN A ... *gasp* LIAR?!?! YOU FUCKTARD LEARN TO GROW A BRAIN PLZ

Double post, my apologies.

Ok new twist,science has proven its best for children to live under a mother and a father for there development and nurturing.This is the bases of marriage is children and if the don't have a mother and a father its isn't good for the children ,this has been proven threw many studies!

New twist? You're using the same argument that you haven't yet been able to defend. Elren, I already stated why I don't think children are the premise for marriage, and you haven't yet contested why my point might be incorrect. You can't keep using that same train of thought unless you make an argument for its validity.

I ask you once more: why are children the premise for marriage? Furthermore, if indeed reproduction *is* the reason for marriage, why should people who are infertile be allowed to marry?

Furthermore, should single parents have their children taken away and put in homes with a father and mother? If not, explain why your mother/father assertion shouldn't apply in their case.

Mandari, I almost made a post saying 'touche,' but when taking Elren into account, the word 'douche' might be a little more applicable.

;)

Hah! So true, Roliel.

Cause its been that way for 5 thousand years?That good enuff for you roliel?

Hahaha, Elren gets cornered and has to fall back on the lame "That's the way it's always been" defense.

how could you NOT agree with that, it would take someone with less then a 200 iq to agree with that

No, that argument will not suffice. There are lots of societal standards that lasted a lot longer than five thousand years that were eventually considered unacceptable. In fact, if you look at early human civilizations, rape and unmitigated violence were considered 'acceptable' by the standards of society for more than ten times the length of your 'five thousand years of marriage' rhetoric.

Just because your idea of 'marriage' has been around for 'so long' doesn't really mean a whole lot. In fact, homosexuality was widely accepted until a little more than a couple thousand years ago. In ancient Greek society, it was both sanctioned and tolerated. (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/greekeros.html) In the Roman Empire, it was tolerated until the onset of Christianity. Imagine that.

Once again, I implore you; why is homosexual marriage a bad thing?

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>why is homosexual marriage a bad thing?<hr></blockquote>

Because their heathen blood will spill for, unto the Earth, blackening the soil and blotting out the sun for all those who cherish God and his ways. They will come out into the night, dancing naked in the flames of Lucifer, groping eachother...their masculine bodies touching...holding...kissing. Drenched in sweat as they slide their tongues along the sides of their lovers...tenderly holding onto one another as they slide their union into eachother in turn...oh...ooooooooh....

even using alcohol


I give your research an "F" if that's the case.

From what I recall, not only was Jesus' first miracle to turn water into wine, it was damn good wine from what the bible says.

Then you have the first thing Noah did after the flood - plant a vineyard so he could make wine.

Nope, if you would have really looked at the bible you would have found it doesn't ban booze.

Cause it isn't and a majority don't support it roliel!Majority of us shouldn't cave into a small extreme leftist minority!

>extreme leftist minority!

what?!?!?!?!!?! :(

Clearly Elren is against people who masturbate with their left hands.

What about those that masturbate with our feet???

Then you would be the extreme talented minority!

A majority should not be able to deprive a minority of its rights; if you don't believe me, look at Brown vs. The Board of Education of Topeka. The United States was founded significantly on upholding the rights of the individual; this is no more than that.

being gay is a choice roliel,being black isnt!Your logic is flawed here!

being gay is a choice roliel,being black isnt!Your logic is flawed here!
I think people who type like that should be banned from marriage while they're still a minority, assuming they still are. :(

Hahahahaha! Look at Elren try to talk logic!

Well, your "logic" isn't exactly perfect either, Elren. It's not been conclusively proven one way or the other that sexual orientation is mental or biological.

And its a small % trying to force what they want on a big % of people!

And what, praytell, are they trying to "force" on you? How does gay marriage being legal affect you?

As others have pointed out here, marriage isn't just about having children. By your "logic", an infertile man and woman shouldn't be allowed to marry. Same for a man and woman that choose NOT to have children.

it effects society!buady

being gay is a choice roliel,being black isnt!Your logic is flawed here!

While I don't see why this matters one bit, or has anything whatsoever to do with this argument, you seem to be implying that were being black a choice, that would somehow mean it's okay to deny them their rights based on a decision that does not reasonably, tangibly effect you whatsoever.

it effects society!

How?

Elren are you plagurizing the 90 other threads that have this topic. We have all determined there are no arguments against gay marriage that arent religious in nature and so stand on whatever side of that issue you want but this river is so well traveled that even I barely care anymore.

being married isnt a right!

Holy crap. Stop throwing more stuff into the pot without explaining it. How does allowing gays to marry effect society, and why isn't marriage a right to two consenting adults?

It changes the definition of marriage is how!It forces a perverse lifestyle that is the same as child molestation and having sex with animals is equal too male and female human being married and it isn't!It isn't a right cause the majority decided its a perverse lifestyle and it isn't natural.we live in a democracy if ya don't like it go move to china.

i need croff and his retard translator

"Seriously Elren, Where do you live, and where did you go to school? I feel bad for you.. I know its not your fault your teachers didnt give you the attention you needed. Please post your home town so we know where not to go near so our children have a chance"

need some !!!!!

Two consenting adults of the same gender having sex is the same as child molestation or having sex with animals?

*head explodes as a result of the sheer magnitude of Elren's stupidity*

Wow, imagine this, we moved from discussing the validity and complexity of the Bible, to whether or not gay marriages should be allowed. Sounds freudian to me :rollin

It forces a perverse lifestyle that is the same as child molestation and having sex with animals is equal too male and female human being married and it isn't

Holy shit, that is so fucking wrong. I'm not personally gay, but one of my mother's best friends (since she was in highschool) is and recently got married to his partner...they're two of the funniest and intelligent guys you'd ever meet. And if you didn't know they were gay you wouldn't really be able to tell. I'm fairly certain they don't fuck little kids, considering how my little brothers react to them.

You are unbelievably retarded Elren. You really should just stop typing with your HUDGE hands because you've gone way too far with that one.

its a matter of opinion talidd allot religions teach this!You have your opinions and others have theres,in no means does it mean you are right!

No, my opinion is right by virtue of you opposing it.

its a matter of morals talidd

by your morals! if a man! in an marriage! is shooting blanks!, then hes no better then a pedophile!?

Majority of christian churches teach this,as well as muslims,you may belive what you wish!

It changes the definition of marriage is how!

You're still not supplying a sufficient argument. You need to show how that directly, negatively effects society. This 'just because' stuff is getting tiring.

It forces a perverse lifestyle that is the same as child molestation and having sex with animals

For one thing, it doesn't force anything on anyone. If gay marriage was legalized, would you suddenly turn gay, Elren? Also, it's soooo far from child molestation and beastiality. Having sex with a child or animal is generally considered wrong because of the issue of consent. Children are not at the age of consent yet, and animals simply cannot consent. That has absolutely nothing to do with a consensual homosexual relationship.

It isn't a right cause the majority decided its a perverse lifestyle

Once again, the 'majority' should not be able to control the rights of a minority; that precedent has been set a number of times in US history.

and it isn't natural.

I don't think there's any legal definition of what's natural, but by many definitions, plastic isn't. Should we outlaw plastic on the basis that it's not natural?

>Majority of christian churches teach this,as well as muslims,you may belive what you wish!

what the hell kind of church do you go to?

catholic churches teach being gay is a sin and they have 1 billion members!Thats most predominate church in the world is it not?

right now i'm willing to believe anything you say is pulled directly out of your ass

roliel you have no right to get married,so stop claiming this is a right when it is not!There is also no right to change the definition of marriage.

Why not?

trimlock hurling insults may make you feel better but sadly it doesn't make you anymore right!

cause a democracy is at work here and people voted you don't have that right!

neither does your baseless facts

i'm suprised you figured that was an insult too, but maybe it was just a guess!

When did people vote that marriage is specifically not a right?

in california roliel where i live,marriage is between a man and a woman only,state law!

Elren, you're an embarrassment to every poor soul that ever taught you, and a shame on your ancestors besides. I sincerely hope English isn't your first language. I also hope that you take a course in logic, since you seem completely ignorant of its most basic concepts.

"Just because" isn't an answer. "Because lots of other people think this" isn't an answer either. You're backed into a corner and haven't even figured out what the questions are, much less how to answer them.

Sad, really.

Is California a federal institution?

Does it need to be?

i have a question

who falls into the "small extreme leftist minority!" and what exactly does that mean?

thormir,insults only prove you losing the argument!

what argument?

p196.ezboard.com/fayonaer...=962.topic (http://p196.ezboard.com/fayonaerofrm15.showMessage?topicID=962.topic)

p196.ezboard.com/fayonaer...=991.topic (http://p196.ezboard.com/fayonaerofrm15.showMessage?topicID=991.topic)

p196.ezboard.com/fayonaer...=980.topic (http://p196.ezboard.com/fayonaerofrm15.showMessage?topicID=980.topic)

For the love of pete.

Bowler, your love of Pete is exactly the point under discussion!

;)

Elren, you have never presented an argument. I've presented quite a few, along with Roliel and an array of others. Each time, you've responded with vapid tripe unworthy of a first grader. That's not an insult; it's an observation agreed upon by pretty much everyone who's been subjected to your pointless blather.

I'm really curious as to your level of education.

thanks

thormir ,im sorry you fail to grasp logic!I wonder about your education as well?How many years of liberal college you take?

Haha.

I asked you first!

(I figure elren can at least relate to the above display of... "logic")

Bowler, your love of Pete is exactly the point under discussion!

HAHA, I have never dated anyone named Pete. Pete is a very straight name. Any gay man with that name would change his name to something homo, like um ... Pedra or Steve.

Pierce!

haha liberal college, thormir must a small minority

society rejects gay marriage cause its a form of perversion and will lead to other perversions of marriage.If gay marriage is allowed whats to stop a father and daughter from marrying or sister and brother?Or a man and a goat?Who is to say the goat didn't give his consent?As you see its a slippery slope that will never end and thats one the reasons society rejects gay marriage!

Wow, that sounds familiar.

You missed pages of the same stuff already. Turns out, it's all about marrying couches, at the heart of things.

Thats just one of the reasons why it whould be bad!

I would totally marry my couch for some leet tax benefits.

haha i must say elren is like a new breed of advanced retard :rollin

As you see its a slippery slope that will never end
One of the seemingly countless things that elren is unaware of, is that the "slippery slope" argument is a logical fallacy (for elren: that means it's invalid argumentation). I know this is probably wasted on this vegetable, but it needed to be pointed out.

Or maybe there is something to it after all! I've noticed how my couch makes the cats purr. Furniture bestiality just isn't right. :(

The purpose of civil marriage is to consolidate property and provide the best circumstances for raising the next generation. Outside of this context, the various marriage benefits simply make no sense- otherwise you're suggesting that a group of citizens (married people) should be arbitrarily subsidized by another group of citizens (single people) for no reason at all.

The essential fallacy of the gay marriage argument rests in the idea that if heterosexuals can get away with 'scamming the system', then homosexuals should be able to do so. This is logically equivalent to suggesting that because the guy who robbed the liquor store last week managed to get away clean, that we should make liquor store robbery legal so everyone can get away with it.

There is simply no reasonable way for us to determine if a given heterosexual couple is going to fulfil the basic purpose of the marriage contract. Nor is there any good way for us to coerce them into fulfilling it. So we are forced to put up with married couples who ultimately get divorced, or never have kids. Yes, they're getting away with being subsidized by the rest of us without living up to their end of the bargain, but we can't really stop them.

In contrast, we know before a gay couple gets married that they will be unable to meet our criteria for a proper marriage due to simple biology. So we can safely forbid the contract, secure in the knowledge that not only does the gay couple have no intent on providing the service to society for which marriage is designed, but they have no capability to provide it.

The purpose of civil marriage is to consolidate property and provide the best circumstances for raising the next generation.
The purpose of marriage is what the people involved make it. Property disposal is only one reason among many.

The essential fallacy of the gay marriage argument rests in the idea that if heterosexuals can get away with 'scamming the system', then homosexuals should be able to do so.
No, the point of the gay marriage argument rests in the idea of equal protection/benefits/recognition under the law. Your analogy is inapt. A better analogy would be providing features to allow the physically handicapped the same access to facilities as the non-handicapped.

If if look at marriage as a "way to scam the system" then the correction wouldn't be to prevent gay marriage. Rather, we'd instead want to correct the system to make it "unscammable."

wiggo is going to have to step down and let elren take the King Retard spot

Kortar, if that's the case, then married couples should only be given tax breaks if they have children. It wouldn't be terribly difficult to do.

wiggo is going to have to step down and let elren take the King Retard spot

my vote is for a Hartmut vs. Elren cage match for the undisputed title.

sorry im not up for king of the Eurotrash yet!Seeing how i still live in the u.s.

I think at this point elren wins King Retard by default. His mental deficiency borders on the divine. I dub thee...Omnipotard!

just more proof you lost the argument!

No. You lost the debate 4 pages ago following 10 posts of backpedalling and inanity. You've yet to construct any kind of argument, and your attempts to assail our points have been shot down at every turn.

We're now at the point where we no longer bother telling the kid leaning against the door that the sign says "pull." Now we just point and laugh (while shedding a tear inside that a mind like yours somehow was allowed out of the 3rd grade).

is that the "slippery slope"is a logical fallacy

Wrong again thormir!This is same LIE the gun banners have been saying for last hundred years.First we get the gun tax of 1934,another gun ban in 1967,yet another one in 1989,1994 as you can see this is proof of the slippery slope theory.Gun rights wasn't just taken away at on point in time its been gradual,over long period of time.Anyone with any common sense or not a rabid leftist can see this,I am sorry you are dishonest and cant.Its a valid argument!

I am sorry you are blind to the truth bro!

"Slippery Slope" is indeed a logical fallacy.

All hail Google!

A paper at UCLA (http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/slippery.htm) about the "Slippery Slope".

A page all about vairous fallacies (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html#index), of which the "Slippery Slope" is one.

Another paper (http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/March-April-2003/scene_marapr03_volokh.html) about the "Slippery Slope".

Another site (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm) about fallacies that includes the "Slippery Slope".

And finally, oh, look! An article (http://slate.msn.com/id/2100824/) on the very topic of the "Slippery Slope" and gay marriage.

Keep trying, Elren the Omnipotard!

(Thanks Mandari for coining that term! :) )

In contrast, we know before a gay couple gets married that they will be unable to meet our criteria for a proper marriage due to simple biology

Gay couples can (and do) raise children. Is it fair to penalize a child because their parent is gay?

To put another spin on it: what if a transgender person (we'll say they are legally a woman now) marries a man? There is no legal barrier in the way to this union, and there is no hope of offspring from it, either.

Seems kind of backwards that if someone is willing to spend a lot of money to change their sex that they could enter into a legal marriage, but if two people of the same sex want to do that same thing they can't.

Yeah, it's so incredibly difficult to acquire a gun these days. Oh how could I be so blind!

*spews rabid liberal froth on everyone!*

no mandari you are being a leftist! most like a small minority of an extreme leftist, which sounds like it hurts, but who knows

and thank you so much for this new term "Omnipotard!"

its funny he brings up the banning of assault rifles, as if that were to make his "argument" more concrete

I don't think there is a slippery slope in Elren's case... I think he just fell off the edge to begin with.

But, question for the community at large...

Me and a couple of my buddies were talking about random shit awhile back, and the subject of transgender people came up.

Our question came down to this, if a guy, had sex with a woman who used to be a man, would it still be homosexual?

Assault weapon is somthing thats capable of full-auto and non of the weapons banned where full-auto,you show you ignorance yet again trimlock!Shesh you dont even know what a assualt weapon is!hahahahaha

www.legalaffairs.org/issues/march-april-2003/scene_marapr03_volokh.html

Defense of the slippery slope

Our question came down to this, if a guy, had sex with a woman who used to be a man, would it still be homosexual?
I think you'd have to ask the guy about that. If he gets a dazed look then runs heaving toward the restroom, it was gay sex. ;)

somehow the Omnipotard! knew what i was thinking about assault rifles and it is apparently the wrong definition

thanks for clearing it up elren! i would hope any 2 year old can assume more intelligence then you!

flamming is only proves you have lost!

you keep saying we all lost

what exactly did we loose? you have never answered the question, so i'm guessing you really are too stupid to know that you aren't argueing anything, or that you think you are argueing and have the upper edge somehow

elren do humanity a favor, stay in your mother's basement

Only thing you have proved gokuu is that you cant flame when you are proved wrong.Come on now you didn't even know what a assault weapon is!You have 0 creditability because of that.This is my last post here on gay marriage.Its useless talking to bunch of leftists

Your not gonna change my mind and im not gonna change yours so this whole discussion is pointless!Its just sinks to flames when the lowlifes that browse this board flame at any chance they get buadyen and others like gokuu.Truly sad but thats just the kinda people we have here.

That is all

Hahahahahaha!

Look at Elren the Omnipotard turn and run!

Elren, the only thing you have proven in this thread is that you are a freaking moron.

Those that have already been subjected to your attempts at the written word on guild message boards, in guildchat, or in various chat channels already knew you were a total idiot. Now everyone that reads this thread knows it!

actually i'm a righty

where did i say i knew what an assault rifle was? where did i TRY to classify one? you can't answer these cause you are the Omnipotard! and don't know what you are talking about and probably don't even know what you are typing as you type it

lololroflomghahalmao!! u du nut knew teh assault riflolz?! - obviously i have 0 credability in an argument that doesn't exist, your rational would astound the brightest professors and rewrite how we debate today! you sir are a genious

tell me what a leftist is btw, i'm sure everyone wants to know

What the fuck does knowing what an assault rifle is have to do with credibility?

"Oh snap! You don't know what an assault rifle is; your opinion on gay marriage is now invalid!"

Its useless talking to bunch of leftists

Woo Hoo! My life is complete! I've been labeled a leftist and a right-wing whacko all in the same day.

Mukaz, you....you commie fascist!

In one fell swoop, elren has succeeded in embarrassing conservatives, Christians, majority rightists, the NRA, his ancestry back to mitochondrial Eve and the nationwide entirety of 2nd grade special ed. The Omnipotard hath spoken! And fled.

where was that thread where fandros beat him in a bet, and elren wouldn't pay up and kept trying to find loopholes that didn't exist?

www.legalaffairs.org/issues/march-april-2003/scene_marapr03_volokh.html

Defense of the slippery slope
Not Found
The requested URL /issues/march-april-2003/scene_marapr03_volokh.html was not found on this server.
Just like the rest of your argument... :(

Sanchek, this (http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/March-April-2003/scene_marapr03_volokh.html) is the correct link.

(Taken from one of my other posts in this thread)

The problem is...well, there are several problems. First, the homosexual population is significant. While estimates such as 10% seem high, even 2% is considerable. Compare this to the "I want to marry my daughter" population, which is...what? .000000...n%? There is no lobby for incestual marriage, no constituency at all. Has anyone ever come forth to say they want to marry their barnyard animals? Furniture? Of course not, all those objections are childish and baseless.

But we can also turn this slippery slope on its head.

If we ban gay marriage...
Next we'll ban marriage between members of different races.
Then we'll ban marriage between US citizens and foreigners.
Then we'll ban marriage between people who met online (including EQ!)
Then we'll ban marriage altogether.

Therefore, we must support gay marriage. Think of the children.

I think the problem comes down to this:

Marriage at least in the way I conceive it is the union between a man and a woman in order to create children and make a family. This was why it was created thousands of years ago at least I believe so :b

Now 2 men or 2 women ( actually 2 women can with medical help but thats another debat and a huge ethical problem) cannot create children and this is the bulk of the problem.

In france homosexuals (and hetero actually) can use the "pacs" its somewhat like a marriage because you get the same legal rights than married people ( I.E legacy rights, bank account etc etc I m not too good with laws but if I remember correctly its a watered down version of marriage rights) but its not called marriage simply because its not an union between 2 person of different sex.

Sooo to make it short, I don't mind 2 people of the same sex deciding to make their union official, just create something new but don't call it marriage.

Marriage at least in the way I conceive it is the union between a man and a woman in order to create children and make a family. This was why it was created thousands of years ago at least I believe so

The purpose of marriage is beyond that of mere reproduction.

If it were simply about reproduction, as I have seen time and time again in this thread- we should not allow women in menopause to marry. After all, they are just as able of having a child as a tree stump, right? (Side note: thefirst person who brings up fertility or hormone treatments as justification also legitimizes the artificial insemination of lesbians.)

We should also reinstate the historical practices of expunging these women from our society, since they are unable to contribute to the gene pool. This served the Inuit (if I recall correctly) for thousands and thousands of years.

Reproduction can also take place perfectly well outside of marriage. I'll attest to that first hand, having been born out of wedlock. My son was as well. In both cases, a marriage took place later- simply because trying to raise a child without being married is much, much more expensive in terms of health care, etc.

I've gotta say, while I'll disagree with Kortar and some of the others ... serious props for bringing up a decent argument. Its a good thing there is laws against children like Elren marrying too, if only there were laws against him reproducing.

You lost me amhorach, I m saying at the start thats what it was made for. Marriage is much more than that now but it still stay an union between a man and a woman shrug. If you want to get 2 men together then find a new word don't use this one :)

Thats a matter of respect I guess, homosexuals always want more respect well how about looking on the other side too. Its not like I actually give a crap if its allowed and 2 men/women marry its just that I can understand why a lot of people don't like that.

You lost me amhorach, I m saying at the start thats what it was made for

I disagree. Reproduction came long before marriage. Using marriage as the basis for reproduction or reproduction as the basis for marriage are flawed arguments- they can (and do) occur without each other.

disagree. Reproduction came long before marriage. Using marriage as the basis for reproduction or reproduction as the basis for marriage are flawed arguments- they can (and do) occur without each other.


................. Well ya reproduction came before marriage what kind of arguement is that. You aren't understanding what I mean. They do occur without each other now as in the last hundred of years. It wasn't the case hundred of years before. Marriage was created at the base to reinforce family bound, reinforce procreation and give the couple rights ( in term of laws). If you wish to argue that thats a totally different subject and debat.

Check up your history :b

Oddly enough, I agree with Kinuvan.

Marriage unfortunately has lost it's "sanctity" within the non-religious sector. While Christians, Muslims, etc...and other religious groups hang onto the principles of a "Christian Marriage" or "Muslim Marriage" etc....these ideals of marriage conflict with pop cultures idea of marriage.

What France has is ~kinda~ like what I've suggested before. Christianity should just face facts and realize that in today's society we can't have the monopoly on words. We still have Baptism, though it's only a matter of time before some company commercializes it, makes a reality TV show out of it and ruins what otherwise is a beautiful, spiritual ceremony.

Throughout human history, Christianity has had the annoying habit of adopting customs and cultures into itself. Although the overall message remains the same, it's alot easier to convert people when they have something to relate too (one example being taking the pagan idealism of Easter and finding some way to make it fit to Christian Doctrine.)

I think it's time now that we give up on the word marriage. The definition of the word has changed so much in the past 100 years that it no longer has a place in the Bible. Time may change the meaning of words but the Bible, especially the Gospel, must remain as consistent as sinful human beings are capable of doing. It's time we come up with a new word to describe the spiritual union of one man and one woman under God. Marriage now is nothing more then two people who want to hook up. Anything 'special' about marriage is percieved by the people involved in the ceremony but the cut and dry of it is so long as people can get married in a court room or on reality TV...there's nothing special about it.

And although "It's what you make of it" may be okay for the general public, that just doesn't cut it for Christianity. It's why so many have fought for so long to preserve it's sanctity. Commercialism has won out. There is no way religion could convince the world "Hey...marriage is a sacred rite...come up with your own ceremony."

Hail to the almighty dollar.

I agree for the most part, though I find "but the Bible, especially the Gospel, must remain as consistent as sinful human beings are capable of doing" kind of vague. Given matters of translation, changes in canon through its formation, and the internal inconsistency of the gospels themselves, I'm guessing you mean the "gospel message?"

I also disagree that there's nothing special about marriage simply because you don't have to be religious to do it. It can be just as special to non-theists as theists, or just as perfunctory.

You intertwine the institution with commercialism, but this seems ironic to me given the rest of your post. The traditional church held wedding with all the frills, gowns, suits, dinners, catering, music, photography and whatnot owes far more to the Almighty Dollar than a visit to the JotP (the average wedding costs $22,000).

Also, I find the "sanctity of marriage" to be an invention of religion, not something inherent to marriage itself (at least in the earliest stages of the institution's evolution).

Obviously, marriage isn't what it used to be. When "family values" hucksters are in the market for a 3rd or 4th wife and half of all marriages fail, "til death do us part" inspires neither the confidence nor awe it ought to.

Like I said, there's nothing special about non-religious marriage. It's what you make of it. And that's just not good enough for most religions.

What it really boils down to is us spending days defining every other word we use....especially what we mean when we say 'special.' You'd probably get offended if I said non-religious people don't realize they are special. Because you'll say, "of course we know we're special." And I'll say, "If you knew you were special, you wouldn't be non-religious." etc...etc...

As for the 'church-held' wedding...keep in mind that the church itself usually does the ceremony relatively cheaply based on demand and availability. Everything else is a product of our consumerism. I don't know about you, but should I ever get married I'd be fine with just dressing nicely and having the priest go through the ceremony in the presence of a few 'witnesses' such as friends and family. My brother got married pretty much like that and I think it cost him a total of just around 600 bucks for use of the church, the pastor's time and providing lunch and dinner for 30 or so people at my parents house after.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Also, I find the "sanctity of marriage" to be an invention of religion, not something inherent to marriage itself (at least in the earliest stages of the institution's evolution).<hr></blockquote>

Pretty much my point. Various religions for the longest time held the patent on marriage. It was there show despite whoever invented it. But as time has trudged on, it's becomming apparent that not as many people want to get married for the religious reasons.

From a religious standpoint we are all sinful beings and won't be able to hold up to the standards God set forth for marriage no matter how hard we try. Even if Christianity came up for a new term for it, people would still make a mockery of it. People will still get married for all the wrong reasons under this 'new' institution simply because they were born and raised Christian.

Anyways...

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Given matters of translation, changes in canon through its formation, and the internal inconsistency of the gospels themselves, I'm guessing you mean the "gospel message?"<hr></blockquote>

That itself depends on the Christian I would guess. The problem is as time goes on our definition of words changes among other things. I hope I never see the day I see a 'Urban Bible' for the hip youngsters because the English language has mutated so much and we no longer know what "begotten" means. I had hoped that the Bible itself could remain timeless but the more I think and read about it the less that seems likely.

But ultimately yeah...it seems the only thing that Christianity will be able to preserve throughout time is the Gospel message. The forgiveness of sins.

Anyways...back to watching Stargate.

I agree with your assessment, particularly on the meaning of words (a major point in my reply to L2 in the other thread was the vagueness of "spirituality"). It's incredibly common in debate (here and elsewhere) that the participants argue away at strawmen because they interpret a core term or concept differently. I once attended a debate between Timothy Leary and Curtis Sleewa (found of the Guardian Angels) concerning drug use. Neither ever touched on the other's position (though to be fair, anyone would have that trouble when debating Leary).

One thing:
From a religious standpoint we are all sinful beings and won't be able to hold up to the standards God set forth for marriage no matter how hard we try.
Doesn't your deity seem a tad unrealistic? If you extrapolate, then no one will be able to hold up to this god's standards no matter how hard they try, and they will be punished for it forever unless they give obeisance. Does this seem just to you? Benevolent? Rational?

I guess I'm looking for something other than, "He can do what he wants to us." It's a typical answer to the above, but seems to make good and evil entirely arbitrary (which solves Euthyphro, but not very satisfactorily).

Actually, if you look at the way etymology usually works, the word 'marriage' probably didn't specifically mean a union between man and woman until it was adopted to express that idea. If they could change it then, why can't we change it now?

(This is of course, theoretic; I looked around on the internet for the history of the word, but couldn't find much of anything. Chances are, though, someone didn't just wake up one day and say a word they've never said before to specifically mean a union between man and woman.)

www.alyon.asso.fr/general...toire.html (http://www.alyon.asso.fr/generale/articles/mariage/histoire.html)


Thats in french, try to bablefish it I guess, has the whole history of marriage.

Come from mas, maris which mean male in latin. Basically union between a man and the father of the woman ( back then women had no say in that).

I can translate the history part if bablefish is too crappy.

Doesn't your deity seem a tad unrealistic? If you extrapolate, then no one will be able to hold up to this god's standards no matter how hard they try, and they will be punished for it forever unless they give obeisance

Dear Thormir:

Since Vhex is Christian, not Jewish, my understanding is that they are 'forgiven' of their sin (of not being able to live up to God's standards for marriage, or anything else for that matter) by means of 'accepting Jesus as their savior' (that his death paid for all human shortcomings). However, 'giving it the old college try' must factor in there somewhere, else why bother attempting to adhere to any standards at all, assuming that one has the 'get out of Hell free card' (and I've literally seen that phrase used in prostlatory materials before)?

It's one of the contradictions within Christianity that I've never been able to reconcile. As far as the gay marriage issue goes, we've beat this issue into the ground (and not long ago!), but as I've already stated, if two consenting adults want to take on the ties that bind, I don't think their plumbing should be an impediment to that. As for myself however, marriage is one of those contradictions that I've not managed to reconcile, either... ;)

Sincerely,
Nydia Ywalmoriel
Past Coercer - Autonomous Collective

On a side note: Pagans, and other groups, have historically used the word 'marriage' on occasion to mean something very different from a monogamous shacking up for life (along with adherence to a certain set of religious principles, if that's your bag). A 'Greenwood Marriage', for example, refers to that frolicking in the woods that occurs (ritually, or just for celebration) at the spring greater and lesser Sabbats (Beltaine and Midsummer, specifically). To Pagans, this is, however, no less sacred - sexuality is being honored as the powerful, life-giving force that it is and given its due respect.

However, 'giving it the old college try' must factor in there somewhere, else why bother attempting to adhere to any standards at all, assuming that one has the 'get out of Hell free card' (and I've literally seen that phrase used in prostlatory materials before)?
Obviously, there are rules given regarding behavior, particularly in the OT. The NT has its rules as well, though many are re-interpreted as guidelines or advice to a specific person 2000 years ago (it seems that rules relating to poverty suffer most from this re-interpretation ;) ).

Anyway, given that acceptance negates sin, it at first seems that the faithful can do what they wish carte blanche. One might say in response that one cannot be "truly" faithful unless one also follows the rules or, at least, honestly repents of moral error. But if one continues to perform even a minor sin (say, sex out of wedlock) then can that person be honestly repentant? Would not the faith be broken and paradise be denied?

In any case, I don't think this line of reasoning impacts my point on the matter, which is as contradictory and problematic as you attest. Cheers,

Ah, yes. The Beltaine Great Marriage. Forgot about that one. ;p

It wasn't the case hundred of years before. Marriage was created at the base to reinforce family bound, reinforce procreation and give the couple rights ( in term of laws). If you wish to argue that thats a totally different subject and debat.


I still argue the purpose of marriage was an economic contract, first and foremost- it defined property law, inheritance, next of kin and other very important issues.

Marriage, as an institution, probably arose when land first became a possesion and was able to pass from generation to generation. Or, possibly to define who got your sheep or cattle when you died. In Western societies, men usualy held the deeds to land and property (such as sheep). As such, it became important to know that your children were in fact YOUR children, so you wanted to take a faithful mate.

I'm willing to wager that in female dominated societies, that the Western concept of marriage falls flat on its face. Anyone have any insight into this? Otherwise, I'm not too terribly motivated to do any research on it at the moment.
However, this quote here:
Basically union between a man and the father of the woman ( back then women had no say in that).
seems to back it up.

-----------
Like I said, there's nothing special about non-religious marriage.

There isn't anything special about religious marriage, either.

But if one continues to perform even a minor sin (say, sex out of wedlock) then can that person be honestly repentant? Would not the faith be broken and paradise be denied?
Interesting use of the word faith here. If breaking a commandment breaks faith then what was the faith in? "Those who are in Christ cannot sin". Your faith that Jesus is the savior saves you not your works lest anyone should boast. It is a gift.

Your faith that Jesus is the savior saves you not your works lest anyone should boast. It is a gift.
I think one can boast about their faith just as easily as boast about works. Indeed, the distinction between the two is rather slender. This also only exacerbates the problem. If living in sin doesn't matter so long as you have faith, then Christianity is on even shakier moral footing than its adherents often claim for secularists.

"Gift" seems a strange term for salvation given only in return for reverence under threat of eternal punishment.

"Gift" seems a strange term for salvation given only in return for reverence under threat of eternal punishment.

It's a gift because we don't deserve it.

Would you give your son's life to save Saddam Hussein from Hell?

It's a gift because we don't deserve it.
Okay, a recap:

*God makes, having complete foreknowledge of our actions.
*Due to our inherently sinful nature (whether via Adam and Eve or from some other model) which this god -- through omniscience -- knew we would come to possess, we deserve nothing but eternal punishment (despite the fact that we are finite beings).
*Long after recorded history has begun, a savior supposedly appears. The deal is made: worship this savior and you get paradise instead of punishment. Of course, millions of people before and after the appearance of this savior never hear the news, so receive punishment by default.

So we are to believe that this god is "good" because we've been placed into a rigged game. We're in the same position as the pharaoh in Exodus, his heart hardened by the Hebrew god, he and his people are made to suffer by that same god. Only he wasn't given a way out. This isn't benevolence, it's tyranny.

Many undeserving people receive gifts without giving something in return. And if they do give something in return, they typically don't have the threat of punishment looming over them. This is like inviting a hooker into your house, putting a gun to her head and saying, "You can blow me gratis and get a nice dinner or you can not blow me and take a bullet." And then you call the meal a gift!

Would you give your son's life to save Saddam Hussein from Hell?
My hypothetical son isn't a divine and eternal portion of myself capable of rising from the dead and returning to live with me in paradise on my right at the dinner table.

Also, there's the question of whether it would be moral to save Saddam Hussein from Hell. If Saddam sincerely praised your name on a daily basis, would you invite him into "akipt's paradise?"

So the point of contention you have with God is that he didn't force every human he created to worship him, because if he did we wouldn't have freewill.

Since we have freewill, this allows the existence of evil. Remember, God didn't create evil. It's just the absense or removal of God, by our freewill.

So we have freewill because God wants us to choose. If you want to blame someone for missing the boat on this God thing, blame your family tree, not God.

And in case you missed it, there are more than just Christians in Heaven now.

And if this post sounds flippant, sorry .. I'm in a hurry.

So the point of contention you have with God is that he didn't force every human he created to worship him, because if he did we wouldn't have freewill.
My point of contention with the standard view of the Christian god (well, one of many) is that we are essentially coerced into worshipping/begging in order to achieve salvation from a situation created by the god, not ourselves.
Since we have freewill, this allows the existence of evil. Remember, God didn't create evil. It's just the absense or removal of God, by our freewill.
I disagree that Christian theology allows for free will, but let's assume it does. Your point ignores natural evils: premature death or immense suffering brought about by disease, natural disasters, congenital defects and other ills over which man has little or no control. Also, if one accepts the events of the bible as historical we can find many examples of the god behaving in ways one could only call evil (e.g., abrogating the pharaoh's free will in Exodus). The removal of god also does not lead to evil; plenty of good has been done without consideration of divine rewards or punishments.
So we have freewill because God wants us to choose. If you want to blame someone for missing the boat on this God thing, blame your family tree, not God.
Really? Should you be imprisoned if your father, grandfather, great-great-great grand uncle or someone further down the line murdered someone? Also, we do not choose our family trees. You and I didn't pick Christian families to give us life and to rear us, just as people born outside of a small corner of the Middle East 2,000 years ago lived and died without a choice. If your god wanted people to choose, it could have picked a better delivery system than the events we find in the NT (which have their own significant problems anyway).

And in case you missed it, there are more than just Christians in Heaven now.
This is just supposition on your part. Saying I "missed it" is silly when neither you nor anyone else has credible first hand experience of Heaven. Also, a large number of Christians would disagree, citing "None come to the Father but through me" as justification. Socrates? On fire. Gandhi? Rotting in Hell like the unrepentant sinner he is. Other non-Christians? Arrayed and burning like Chinese lanterns on the devil's doorstep. And there is nothing to say whether you or they are correct (and plenty of reasons that Heaven is just one more nonsensical part of a nonsensical religion).

The Argument from Non-Belief (ANB) is a major problem for traditional Christianity. If the Christian god wants people to choose, yet a significant number of people were not given knowledge that there was a choice to be made (i.e., not exposed to the gospel message), then it would seem that the god is at the very least unfair, if not outright evil. I've read a lot of apologetics on this subject (e.g., William Lane Craig), and they just don't succeed in resolving the problem. If anything, they create new problems. Given this and the many other formal arguments, I find that a reasonable and informed person is thoroughly justified in denying Christian claims regarding their deity.

And in case you missed it, there are more than just Christians in Heaven now.

How do you reconcile that statement with this one, from Jesus himself.

From the gospel of John, Chapter 14 (NIV)

5 Thomas said to him, "Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?"
6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
7 If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him."

Christ clearly establishes himself as the path by which we all gain access to God the Father.

So if you are correct that there are more than just Christians in heaven, they had to achieve knowledge of The Truth (Christ) through some other means than the Christian version. If that is incorrect then it is also incorrect to say that there are more than just Christians in heaven.

Its also not enough to simply explain it away as a conversion experience since a Buddhist who accepts Christ ceases to be a Buddhist and becomes Christian.

I personally agree that heaven isn't restricted to Christians only. The bible provides us with examples, in both old and new testaments, of persons who had achieved righteousness in God's eyes without the benefit of the oft-debated set of rules and guidelines Christians are supposed to live by.

My point of contention with the standard view of the Christian god (well, one of many) is that we are essentially coerced into worshipping/begging in order to achieve salvation from a situation created by the god, not ourselves.

Hell is clearly defined in the Bible as simply being apart from God. You arent interested in being with him here why would it matter if your not with him in Heaven (defined as "were he is"). The whole fire and brimstone, wailing and nashing of teeth thing is the result of being seperated from God for those who didnt have any interest in him now but feel they should be allowed to hang out with him later. If you like this world and the way it runs then you wont have many problems in hell anyway. hmmm?

People before Christ were saved based on their relationship with God which had a pretty big price tag on it. Really if you know the Old Testament at all people could sacrifice animals to cleanse themselves. This was in place to show that "works" are death but faith is life. He showed it over and over again.

Then he sent Christ to streamline the process and give people the opportunity to have a personal relationship with God without having to fear being seperated from him over stuff they did in this life. They had a single sacrifice that only required them to believe that the sacrifice was there for them and it would include them in its benefit. Jesus did not abolish the Law but fulfilled it (just as the animal blood did but on a permanent basis) in those who believe.

Salvation is not complicated and as much as everyone (Christians alike) want to make a flow chart for it, there is no such thing. Believe and you will be saved, not "believe and you will have a new set of rules."

Hell is clearly defined in the Bible as simply being apart from God.
Well, that's partly be definition. God resides in Heaven, not in Hell. If you're in Hell, then you're not in the presence of the god. But is it that simple? Some Christian writers (e.g., J. P. Moreland) have tried to present Hell in a kinder, gentler manner than other interpreters. Let's look at some verses:

Matt 5:22 - But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca, ' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.

Matt 10:28 - 28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

Matt 13:40-43 - "As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.

Mark 9:43-48 - If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where " 'their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.'

There are a number of other verses (many of which focus on the darkness and gnashing of teeth), but these suffice to show that Hell isn't simply "separation from God." The Bible clearly presents it as an eternal torture chamber.
People before Christ were saved based on their relationship with God which had a pretty big price tag on it.
Yes, the Hebrew god ordered the deaths of a multitude of animals in formal sacrifice (and a multitude of humans who got in the way). However, how this "saved" them in any way is unclear. Heaven is where the god lives, not where humans go (with some exceptions, like Elijah and Enoch). Anyway, my point applied to the multitude of people's unfamiliar with the gospel message. Include the Hebrew laws in that.
Then he sent Christ to streamline the process...
This essentially states that the god didn't get it right the first time. But it still doesn't address my main points. Kind of ironic when seen with "Believe and you will be saved, not "believe and you will have a new set of rules." =)

Well, that's partly be definition. God resides in Heaven, not in Hell. If you're in Hell, then you're not in the presence of the god. But is it that simple?

Um actually yes it is. The bible explicitly spells out that God will remove heaven and earth and create a new one. On the new earth he will put a city ... the exact measurements of the city are given. He will then close the gates. There will be many outside that wish to come in but will not be allowed. Is this heaven and hell? If so, where is the fire? Or perhaps God as per usual is speaking of their spirit and not of the flesh.

This essentially states that the god didn't get it right the first time. But it still doesn't address my main points. Kind of ironic when seen with "Believe and you will be saved, not "believe and you will have a new set of rules." =)

Sorry but you didnt get what I said. God had the original plan set up to show the necessity of the second. I said clearly that he put the first plan in place to show "works leads to death but faith leads to life".

And Hell is everlasting torture. Naturally, given the choice people would skip out on the torture and want in.

But we're straying further from the central points I made above.

The bible explicitly spells out that God will remove heaven and earth and create a new one. On the new earth he will put a city ... the exact measurements of the city are given. He will then close the gates. There will be many outside that wish to come in but will not be allowed.


It also talks literally about a lake of sulfur and fire opened for the purpose of eternal punishment earlier in Revelations than where you are getting the new Jerusalem information.

2 Timothy 3:7"always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth"<img border=0 src="http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/laugh.gif" />

Romans 1:22"Professing themselves to be wise,they became fools"<img border=0 src="http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/laugh.gif" />

So, Elren, what's up with editing your post (http://members.arstechnica.com/subscriptors/x/thanselm/clip1.jpg) on page 6 two days after you made it to remove any references of you being done with this thread?

(Unfortunately, I don't have an image of the original post because I didn't think Elren would stoop that low. Obviously I was wrong.)

Great quotes for people unable to think for themselves. And even better for elren, who cannot think at all.

Matthew 5:22 - But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca, ' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.

Matthew 23:17 - You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred?

And Jesus and Paul go to Hell. It's fun playing with quotes!

You better watch it, Thormir, or else Elren will smack you down!

He has an IQ of 145, you know!

:rollin

:eek

2 Peter 3:16"as in also in all his epistles,speaking in them of these things,in which are some things hard to be understood,which they that are unlearned and unstable twist ,as they do also the other scriptures,unto their own destruction"<img border=0 src="http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/tongue.gif" />

The Bible must be true because it says it is!!

That's the kind of line one would expect to hear from someone who has just had their entire worldview undermined. "Well...well...you just don't understand!"

Same kind of justification given elsewhere in Peter when the parousia didn't happen as expected.

It holds great appeal for small minds and little else.

"professing to be wise,they became fools"

Romans 3:4 "let god be true but every man a liar"

I can sit here for hours and work through all the quotes you can come up with and point out how clearly you are removing them from context but the point is clear. You either believe it or you dont. Its not my job to make you believe so Im not going to argue that as a point.

The point is that you cant use religion as a basis for government. I dont believe religion and God are related anyway and you can fight that one all you want.

"professing to be wise,they became fools"

Hahaha, funny that Elren would choose that verse to quote, especially when it suits him to a "T".

(Edit: removed signature)

well have to disagree then buadyen i think its more suited to you!

That verse is talking about those that think there wiser than god,i don't think i am,you do think you are however! So it wouldn't apply to me,but it would to you!

I can quote to you a verse from the book too.

Austin 3:16 "Cause Stonecold said so!" :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

well have to disagree then buadyen i think its more suited to you!

That verse is talking about those that think there wiser than god,i don't think i am,you do think you are however! So it wouldn't apply to me,but it would to you

Hmm.. the "I know you are, but what am I?" defense. *Yawn*

The only intellectual/wisdom comparisons that anyone could pull from my posts are between you and I. I've never once compared myself to any deity. I guess that kinda blows apart any point you think you might have had!

Anyone care to take bets on the next adolescent defense mechanism Elren will use?

I'll take "Yo mama!" for 500 Alex.

If I wrote a book full of insults directed at Elren, could I post it here and be sure that all my statements would be bulletproof?

most likely<img border=0 src="http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/roll.gif" />

Buadyen im not the one that is using personal attacks like we did back in grade school,its sad but you still haven't gotten beyond that stage yet it seems!

Rush doesn't give a crap about anything but what goads more listeners to give his show ratings and him more products to plug and more millions in his bank account. That might have been said somewhere else by someone who is more of an avid poster, but, /shrug.

He isn't any better or worse than Howard Stern in reality. One could argue they are two sides of the same coin. Both are in tune with their audiences and give them everything they want to hear. It probably means both of them will soon fade away. The Clintons are out of the political spotlight and there is only so many lesbians you can have on a show before the format gets predictable.

true but rush has estimated near 20 million listeners!howard has fraction of that!

Just cause rush has failed marriage doesn't mean he cant talk about people trying to re-define the marriage means!

?
Im sorry, but Howard Stern kills Rush in almost every market and demographic except Men over 40.

www.orlandosentinel.com/o...me-entlife (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/orl-livstern12061204jun12,0,2071613.story?coll=orl-home-entlife)

The latest Arbitron radio ratings confirm Stern's influence: For the reporting period that ended in March, Stern scored big gains in the nation's largest markets -- New York, Los Angeles and Chicago. He is No. 1 among adult listeners in New York and Los Angeles.

www.radio-info.com/mods/b...=indecency (http://www.radio-info.com/mods/board.php?Post=173142&Board=indecency)

Rush does NOT have over 20 million. He has about 13 mill from the numbers I have seen. And thats what is called a "Cumlative" or how many people are listening at one time. Considering the nature of the show, the fact that Rush is on from Noon to Three and Howard on from 6am to 11am, Most estimates say that Howards highwater mark is higher than Rushes.
The reason for this is.
At 6am Howard has his low ratings mark. Its 3am in LA.
Howard hits his High mark at 9-10, but the "Cumlative" takes the average of all the numbers.
While the 12 to 3 lends itself to steady listening, shorter, midday...

He [Stern] has an estimated 8.5 million listeners each week, third after the 14.5 million Limbaugh listeners and the 12 million Hannity listeners.

Doesn't matter how you spin those numbers, 8.5 million < 14.5 million.

You can EASILY argue, however, that Stern has a much more impact on voters' decisions due to his politically diverse audiences.

But only a liberal would take political advise from a porn director anyway. :p

Gotta look at the way the numbers are counted.

To take the numbers at the face value doesnt tell the whole story.

Take Limbaugh and put him on at 6 in the morning or put Stern on for a 3 hour block in the middle of the afternoon.
It makes a difference.
Remember, the ratings takes an AVERAGE of the hours on.

Buadyen im not the one that is using personal attacks like we did back in grade school,its sad but you still haven't gotten beyond that stage yet it seems!

Funny, that looks like a poorly veiled personal attack to me. Guess you should more carefully consider what you are and aren't doing.

Odd that you're singling me out of the 4 or 5 other people that are making fun of you and your postings. I bet none of the others (that still play) received an in-game tell from you bragging about your "ranger skill" and "intelligence".

It makes a difference.

Yeah, putting Stern on from noon to 3pm would kill his numbers even more.

They're at the hours they are for a reason, to get the max averages. This is how they make $$$$.

I dont think you can say Stern was "designed".
There wasnt this format before Stern. Who was on that just talked? No news, no music, just a man on the radio, being broadcast nationwide?
Nobody. Stern basically invented the format.
He was a morning jock. Drive time morning, traditionally the most important time for radio stations. Everyone is in their cars.
Stern started there and his show exploded from there.
Rush basically owes his existance on radio to Stern.

If Howard quits and goes to XM satellite, you will see the revolution of the satillite radio.

Lleauaric says, "If only Stern had a different time slot, aired for three hours instead of four, and all of Rush's listerns changed to his show, he could beat him! Yeah!"

:rollin

There wasnt this format before Stern. Who was on that just talked? No news, no music, just a man on the radio, being broadcast nationwide?


Imus was on before him actually, although you could dismiss him since he talks about more than lesbians and breasts. I'd agree he was the first shock jock(at least that went nationwide).

Ya, Imus was on.. but he changed what he was doing to what Stern was doing.

And Akipt. No listeners have to change. But instead give Howard the ability to have the entirety of his audience tune in at the same time instead of staggered tuning because of the time difference from the coast. And if Rush had a 6am EST start time, how many of his LA and West coast listeners would be tuning in?
The numbers would switch dramatically. But Howard makes money in the morning, has for 20 years+, and thats his niche. Rush found his, and his competition is non existant in his time slot. Although, this last rating period, Air America beat Rush in the 12 -3 time slot with 18 to 40 year olds in the New York market.

But instead give Howard the ability to have the entirety of his audience tune in at the same time instead of staggered tuning because of the time difference from the coast. And if Rush had a 6am EST start time, how many of his LA and West coast listeners would be tuning in? The numbers would switch dramatically.

Stop comparing apples and oranges would ya?

Air America beat Rush in the 12 -3 time slot with 18 to 40 year olds in the New York market.

Dude, you're hilarious, keep it up. :p

In New York during April, its first month on the air, Air America attracted more listeners in the 25- to 54-year-old demographic from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. than did WABC, where the popular Limbaugh is heard. Air America also beat WABC among the 18- to 34-year-old group. That's specifically intriguing to many in the business because talk radio typically draws an older audience.

Air America had encouraging ratings in the evenings as well, when Janeane Garofalo is the host. But the morning drive-time numbers — a particularly lucrative time period for radio stations — weren't as strong. The network had similarly encouraging results in Chicago, but it's no longer heard there after a dispute with the station group it leased time from. Internet listening also has been heavy.
www.twincities.com/mld/tw...176.htm?1c (http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/entertainment/8870176.htm?1c)

Rush Limbaugh is an idiot. His views are "Its right wing 100% or its 100% wrong". Bullshit and everyone knows it (except maybe Akipt). There is no political view point that is right 100% of the time. Left, Right or otherwise. Just remember Akipt no matter how "right" you think you are all the time there are 5 Billion people on the planet that are just as right as you, in their mind. Just like your right "in your mind".

"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look long into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you."
-Friedrich Nietzsche

THe article requires registration


similarly encouraging results in Chicago,

ANd this makes me doubt the veracity of the article. Air America was on a little known station, used to be a spanish station, and there was no advance marketing that I saw. There was a big article in the Trib the day Air American kicked off, but that was about it. Plus, the station was on and off the air so much from day to day that you literally had to ask around to find out whether or not Air America would be broadcasting on a particular day.

Bullshit and everyone knows it (except maybe Akipt). There is no political view point that is right 100% of the time. Left, Right or otherwise. Just remember Akipt no matter how "right" you think you are all the time there are 5 Billion people on the planet that are just as right as you, in their mind. Just like your right "in your mind".

I couldn't give a rat's ass what you or Rush thinks on any given topic, so I was perplexed to see that you targeted me for this attack of yours Bowler. Go fuck yourself k?

Where did rush state he is right 100% the time?

You misread that.

ok where rush say its right wing 100% or its 100% wrong?

Well, Hannity calls liberals "evil" on a daily basis.
Rush doesnt use evil as a catchphrase like Hannity, but the theme is the same.
Liberals = Evil and are out to destroy America.
Conservatives = the only hope to save America from certain destruction.

Propaganda, demagogery...

It's political talk radio - of course each side calls the other side names, and of course they believe they are right and the other side is wrong.

In the end who cares if it's Stern or Rush who's spewing bullshit, they're both moronic prima donnas with sheep for audiences.

There's a difference between simple disagreement (and even the usual hyperbolic poking) and referring to one's political opposite as "evil" and "out to destroy the country." I wish I could trust my countrymen to recognize the latter as foolishness when they hear it.

guess it is a matter what one would consider evil then!Who is to say that hanity or rush is wrong, its a matter of opinion!

When the Liberal left is in power the demogery is no different L2.


1992-200

Conservitive= Ebil!!
Liberal= progressive and good!!!


Fandros