And like wise it's your claim that it happen, No where in the Bible does it ordain homosexual marriage. That's is the history of the Christian faith. Now you produce new information that fits your agenda is call rewriting history.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
A Reasonable Solution To The Gay Marriage Debate
- Thread starter garyganu
- Start date
And like wise it's your claim that it happen, No where in the Bible does it ordain homosexual marriage. That's is the history of the Christian faith. Now you produce new information that fits your agenda is call rewriting history.
WinterBorn
Diamond Member
So I'm factual
No, you simply claim it. As I claim it is evidence.
Are you saying that the rituals discussed did not happen? Are you saying they were for a different purpose? Or are you saying the researcher invented the entire thing?
And like wise it's your claim that it happen, No where in the Bible does it ordain homosexual marriage. That's is the history of the Christian faith. Now you produce new information that fits your agenda is call rewriting history.
Once again, I never said the bible advocated anything. Nor did the researcher.
What he did was find writings which talked about rituals performed, discussed artwork that depicts these rituals, and named groups that were part of the church.
Your claim that they did not happen is based solely on what the bible says, not on any knowlege of the actions of the church. The catholic church has done many things that would not fit in with the bible.
WinterBorn
Diamond Member
Really does it? Where exactly did some of our laws come from? This should be good.
If laws are made based solely on a religions doctrines, that would, in effect, be mandating a state religion.
Laws have come from numerous places. Some from reasoned discourse. Some from basic common sense.
Is it lawful to steal? Is it lawful to have more than one wife or husband? Is it lawful to have sex with animals? All three are based on religious teachings.
A quick bit of googling shows the Code of Hammurabi to have been written around 2100 BC. This means it predates the 10 Commandments.
So, in fact, there were laws against stealing, adultery and murder that were not based on religious doctrines. And they were among the first laws written.
If laws are made based solely on a religions doctrines, that would, in effect, be mandating a state religion.
Laws have come from numerous places. Some from reasoned discourse. Some from basic common sense.
Is it lawful to steal? Is it lawful to have more than one wife or husband? Is it lawful to have sex with animals? All three are based on religious teachings.
So there were no laws against stealing outside of religious laws? lol And there are places where it is legal to have more than one wife or husband.
Look, many laws were sent out with religious dogma attached, there is no doubt of that. This does not point to laws being based in religion as much as it points to religion being used to control the masses.
The first complete set of written laws was The Code of Hammurabi. There were laws against stealing, murder, adultery, incest, and (I think) even beastiality. No mention in any history text I have seen has been made of them being based on any religion.
So there were no laws against stealing outside of religious laws?
Are there?
In America? Can people who leave those place take all their wives with them and live together as man and wife?And there are places where it is legal to have more than one wife or husband.
The first complete set of written laws was The Code of Hammurabi.
Really? So the founders mention Hammurabi as someone they may have gotten the idea from?
WinterBorn
Diamond Member
Is it lawful to steal? Is it lawful to have more than one wife or husband? Is it lawful to have sex with animals? All three are based on religious teachings.
So there were no laws against stealing outside of religious laws? lol And there are places where it is legal to have more than one wife or husband.
Look, many laws were sent out with religious dogma attached, there is no doubt of that. This does not point to laws being based in religion as much as it points to religion being used to control the masses.
The first complete set of written laws was The Code of Hammurabi. There were laws against stealing, murder, adultery, incest, and (I think) even beastiality. No mention in any history text I have seen has been made of them being based on any religion.
Are there?
In America? Can people who leave those place take all their wives with them and live together as man and wife?And there are places where it is legal to have more than one wife or husband.
The first complete set of written laws was The Code of Hammurabi.
Really? So the founders mention Hammurabi as someone they may have gotten the idea from?
So you are claiming that our laws against stealing are based solely on the bible?
No, you simply claim it. As I claim it is evidence.
Are you saying that the rituals discussed did not happen? Are you saying they were for a different purpose? Or are you saying the researcher invented the entire thing?
And like wise it's your claim that it happen, No where in the Bible does it ordain homosexual marriage. That's is the history of the Christian faith. Now you produce new information that fits your agenda is call rewriting history.
Once again, I never said the bible advocated anything. Nor did the researcher.
What he did was find writings which talked about rituals performed, discussed artwork that depicts these rituals, and named groups that were part of the church.
Your claim that they did not happen is based solely on what the bible says, not on any knowlege of the actions of the church. The catholic church has done many things that would not fit in with the bible.
Once again I never said the bible advocated anything. Nor did the researcher.
Did I say you or the researcher did? Stop twisting something I did not say into something you're saying. Fact is you don't want the Bible brought up but you want to keep mentioning some revised history of the church because it fits your agenda.
What's your evidence to refute that claim?So there were no laws against stealing outside of religious laws? lol And there are places where it is legal to have more than one wife or husband.
Look, many laws were sent out with religious dogma attached, there is no doubt of that. This does not point to laws being based in religion as much as it points to religion being used to control the masses.
The first complete set of written laws was The Code of Hammurabi. There were laws against stealing, murder, adultery, incest, and (I think) even beastiality. No mention in any history text I have seen has been made of them being based on any religion.
Are there?
In America? Can people who leave those place take all their wives with them and live together as man and wife?
The first complete set of written laws was The Code of Hammurabi.
Really? So the founders mention Hammurabi as someone they may have gotten the idea from?
So you are claiming that our laws against stealing are based solely on the bible?
Founding Father John Jay, who openly welcomed Christian influences in government. "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers. It is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."
WinterBorn
Diamond Member
And like wise it's your claim that it happen, No where in the Bible does it ordain homosexual marriage. That's is the history of the Christian faith. Now you produce new information that fits your agenda is call rewriting history.
Once again, I never said the bible advocated anything. Nor did the researcher.
What he did was find writings which talked about rituals performed, discussed artwork that depicts these rituals, and named groups that were part of the church.
Your claim that they did not happen is based solely on what the bible says, not on any knowlege of the actions of the church. The catholic church has done many things that would not fit in with the bible.
Once again I never said the bible advocated anything. Nor did the researcher.
Did I say you or the researcher did? Stop twisting something I did not say into something you're saying. Fact is you don't want the Bible brought up but you want to keep mentioning some revised history of the church because it fits your agenda.
I am not twisting anything. I am just being complete so you or someone else doesn't come back later with the usual "But you said..."
Bring up the bible all you want. But it does not change anything. The rituals performed by the catholic church are explained and listed.
What I find amusing is that you dismiss catholics as idol worshippers, which clearly goes against the bible. And yet, your only basis for arguing that the research is false is that it goes against the bible.
Once again, the catholic church has done plenty that goes against the bible.
WinterBorn
Diamond Member
What's your evidence to refute that claim?Are there?
In America? Can people who leave those place take all their wives with them and live together as man and wife?
Really? So the founders mention Hammurabi as someone they may have gotten the idea from?
So you are claiming that our laws against stealing are based solely on the bible?
Founding Father John Jay, who openly welcomed Christian influences in government. "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers. It is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."
Nice quote, but that shows someone calling for christian leaders to be elected, not that laws be written based solely on christian doctrines.
Once again, I never said the bible advocated anything. Nor did the researcher.
What he did was find writings which talked about rituals performed, discussed artwork that depicts these rituals, and named groups that were part of the church.
Your claim that they did not happen is based solely on what the bible says, not on any knowlege of the actions of the church. The catholic church has done many things that would not fit in with the bible.
Once again I never said the bible advocated anything. Nor did the researcher.
Did I say you or the researcher did? Stop twisting something I did not say into something you're saying. Fact is you don't want the Bible brought up but you want to keep mentioning some revised history of the church because it fits your agenda.
I am not twisting anything. I am just being complete so you or someone else doesn't come back later with the usual "But you said..."
Bring up the bible all you want. But it does not change anything. The rituals performed by the catholic church are explained and listed.
What I find amusing is that you dismiss catholics as idol worshippers, which clearly goes against the bible. And yet, your only basis for arguing that the research is false is that it goes against the bible.
Once again, the catholic church has done plenty that goes against the bible.
WOW I didn't think it was possible but truth matter has company.
1. I never said you or the researcher were making claims about the bible but you said that I did, that would be a lie
BEFORE WE GO ANY FURTHER YOU HAVE GOT TO STOP LYING
WinterBorn
Diamond Member
Did I say you or the researcher did? Stop twisting something I did not say into something you're saying. Fact is you don't want the Bible brought up but you want to keep mentioning some revised history of the church because it fits your agenda.
I am not twisting anything. I am just being complete so you or someone else doesn't come back later with the usual "But you said..."
Bring up the bible all you want. But it does not change anything. The rituals performed by the catholic church are explained and listed.
What I find amusing is that you dismiss catholics as idol worshippers, which clearly goes against the bible. And yet, your only basis for arguing that the research is false is that it goes against the bible.
Once again, the catholic church has done plenty that goes against the bible.
WOW I didn't think it was possible but truth matter has company.
1. I never said you or the researcher were making claims about the bible but you said that I did, that would be a lie
BEFORE WE GO ANY FURTHER YOU HAVE GOT TO STOP LYING
Before you go into hysterics, show me where I said what you claim I said.
NO I have already called you on two liesI am not twisting anything. I am just being complete so you or someone else doesn't come back later with the usual "But you said..."
Bring up the bible all you want. But it does not change anything. The rituals performed by the catholic church are explained and listed.
What I find amusing is that you dismiss catholics as idol worshippers, which clearly goes against the bible. And yet, your only basis for arguing that the research is false is that it goes against the bible.
Once again, the catholic church has done plenty that goes against the bible.
WOW I didn't think it was possible but truth matter has company.
1. I never said you or the researcher were making claims about the bible but you said that I did, that would be a lie
BEFORE WE GO ANY FURTHER YOU HAVE GOT TO STOP LYING
Before you go into hysterics, show me where I said what you claim I said.
You use church documents and then claim it's not religious
Now you claiming that I said said things when I didn't
Stop the lies.
WinterBorn
Diamond Member
NO I have already called you on two liesWOW I didn't think it was possible but truth matter has company.
1. I never said you or the researcher were making claims about the bible but you said that I did, that would be a lie
BEFORE WE GO ANY FURTHER YOU HAVE GOT TO STOP LYING
Before you go into hysterics, show me where I said what you claim I said.
You use church documents and then claim it's not religious
Now you claiming that I said said things when I didn't
Stop the lies.
First of all, the research showed actions by the church. I did not say anything about religion because according to my bible study those actions would have gone against what the bible teaches.
Second of all, show me where I claimed you said anything you didn't say.
If you can't do that, I will accept your apology.
It's still religious dumb ass. What part of CHURCH being part of religion don't you comprehend?NO I have already called you on two liesBefore you go into hysterics, show me where I said what you claim I said.
You use church documents and then claim it's not religious
Now you claiming that I said said things when I didn't
Stop the lies.
First of all, the research showed actions by the church. I did not say anything about religion because according to my bible study those actions would have gone against what the bible teaches.
Second of all, show me where I claimed you said anything you didn't say.
If you can't do that, I will accept your apology.
You posted this
Once again I never said the bible advocated anything. Nor did the researcher.
Now tell me when did I suggest you did say that or the researcher?
If you cannot show me that I said it would it be a lie and your attempt to twist something into something I did not say?
Last edited:
WinterBorn
Diamond Member
It's still religious dumb ass. What part of CHURCH being part of religion don't you comprehend?NO I have already called you on two lies
You use church documents and then claim it's not religious
Now you claiming that I said said things when I didn't
Stop the lies.
First of all, the research showed actions by the church. I did not say anything about religion because according to my bible study those actions would have gone against what the bible teaches.
Second of all, show me where I claimed you said anything you didn't say.
If you can't do that, I will accept your apology.
So the church selling indulgences to rich people was religious also?
And helping priests avoid prosecution for child molesting is religious too?
If you want to call every action by the church a religious one, that is all you. What I did was show research that documents actions by the church. There is a difference.
But if you want to go with the lying thing, knock yourself out. So far your debate technique relies mainly on making claims without backup and calling names. If you have nothing more of substance to offer, then wander away to a new topic.
If you would like to continue on the bit about laws, feel free to add more nonsense.
WinterBorn
Diamond Member
It's still religious dumb ass. What part of CHURCH being part of religion don't you comprehend?NO I have already called you on two lies
You use church documents and then claim it's not religious
Now you claiming that I said said things when I didn't
Stop the lies.
First of all, the research showed actions by the church. I did not say anything about religion because according to my bible study those actions would have gone against what the bible teaches.
Second of all, show me where I claimed you said anything you didn't say.
If you can't do that, I will accept your apology.
You posted this
Once again I never said the bible advocated anything. Nor did the researcher.
Now tell me when did I suggest you did say that or the researcher?
If you can show me would it be a lie and your attempt to twist something into something I did not say?
You have continued to deny the validity of the research by trying to reference the bible. Neither I nor the researcher mentioned the bible at all. So I keep trying to clarify that what the bible says about homosexuality does not change the truth of whether the church actually performed the rites stated in the link. It simply does not change anything in the research.
WinterBorn
Diamond Member
It's still religious dumb ass. What part of CHURCH being part of religion don't you comprehend?NO I have already called you on two lies
You use church documents and then claim it's not religious
Now you claiming that I said said things when I didn't
Stop the lies.
First of all, the research showed actions by the church. I did not say anything about religion because according to my bible study those actions would have gone against what the bible teaches.
Second of all, show me where I claimed you said anything you didn't say.
If you can't do that, I will accept your apology.
You posted this
Once again I never said the bible advocated anything. Nor did the researcher.
Now tell me when did I suggest you did say that or the researcher?
If you cannot show me that I said it would it be a lie and your attempt to twist something into something I did not say?
In post #741 you said "And like wise it's your claim that it happen, No where in the Bible does it ordain homosexual marriage. That's is the history of the Christian faith. Now you produce new information that fits your agenda is call rewriting history."
To which I replied "Once again I never said the bible advocated anything. Nor did the researcher."
You have limited comprehensions skills don't you? When did I say you or the researcher said the bible was advocating anything? Which there is you twisting something I did not say into something elseIt's still religious dumb ass. What part of CHURCH being part of religion don't you comprehend?First of all, the research showed actions by the church. I did not say anything about religion because according to my bible study those actions would have gone against what the bible teaches.
Second of all, show me where I claimed you said anything you didn't say.
If you can't do that, I will accept your apology.
You posted this
Once again I never said the bible advocated anything. Nor did the researcher.
Now tell me when did I suggest you did say that or the researcher?
If you cannot show me that I said it would it be a lie and your attempt to twist something into something I did not say?
In post #741 you said "And like wise it's your claim that it happen, No where in the Bible does it ordain homosexual marriage. That's is the history of the Christian faith. Now you produce new information that fits your agenda is call rewriting history."
To which I replied "Once again I never said the bible advocated anything. Nor did the researcher."
Last edited:
WinterBorn
Diamond Member
You have limited comprehensions skills don't you? When did I say you or the researcher said the bible was advocating anything? Which there is you twisting something I did not say into something elseIt's still religious dumb ass. What part of CHURCH being part of religion don't you comprehend?
You posted this
Now tell me when did I suggest you did say that or the researcher?
If you cannot show me that I said it would it be a lie and your attempt to twist something into something I did not say?
In post #741 you said "And like wise it's your claim that it happen, No where in the Bible does it ordain homosexual marriage. That's is the history of the Christian faith. Now you produce new information that fits your agenda is call rewriting history."
To which I replied "Once again I never said the bible advocated anything. Nor did the researcher."
And I never said you did.
Can we get back to the topic or shall we continue in this ridiculous "Liar Liar Pants on Fire" bit?
My statement that neither I nor the researcher ever said the bible advocated anything is true. That you misconstrue it as an accusation aimed at you is not my problem.
You have limited comprehensions skills don't you? When did I say you or the researcher said the bible was advocating anything? Which there is you twisting something I did not say into something elseIn post #741 you said "And like wise it's your claim that it happen, No where in the Bible does it ordain homosexual marriage. That's is the history of the Christian faith. Now you produce new information that fits your agenda is call rewriting history."
To which I replied "Once again I never said the bible advocated anything. Nor did the researcher."
And I never said you did.
Can we get back to the topic or shall we continue in this ridiculous "Liar Liar Pants on Fire" bit?
My statement that neither I nor the researcher ever said the bible advocated anything is true. That you misconstrue it as an accusation aimed at you is not my problem.
And there you go you're twisting something I never suggested nor did I imply that you said the bible was advocating anything. You are the one who is suggesting that I did.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 22
- Views
- 290
- Replies
- 229
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 78
- Views
- 730
- Replies
- 159
- Views
- 1K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 15
- Views
- 103
- Replies
- 30
- Views
- 101
- Replies
- 17
- Views
- 48
- Replies
- 6
- Views
- 87
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8627
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 485
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-