Gay marriage legal in 12 states, how soon is the rapture?

[Aristotle]

The rapture will occur when Harold Camping makes the next prediction.

 

[bodecea]

Now that over 20% of the states allow gay folk to marry how fast will heterosexual marriage disintegrate into homo sex butt fuckin forcing God, Allah and the Spaghetti Monster to throw a 20 mile wide comet at the earth?

That's never happened before. What has happened before, every time, is that the civilization that accepts the normalcy of homosexual relationships disintegrates and is replaced by a civilization that doesn't.

Rome might have felt like a 20 mile wide comet got thrown at them when Alaric sacked the city, but it wasn't a 20 mile wide comet, it just felt that way.

Rome was doing ok and expanding before the christians took over. Then the pagans beat them.

 

[martybegan]

Now that over 20% of the states allow gay folk to marry how fast will heterosexual marriage disintegrate into homo sex butt fuckin forcing God, Allah and the Spaghetti Monster to throw a 20 mile wide comet at the earth?

Not that I believe in the rapture, but sometimes, I would almost wish it would happen for even a slim chance to see the look of utter shock and fail on the faces of some of our more annoying atheistic/agnostic posters. The end of the world might just be worth that.

 

[Toro]

Wouldn't it be funny if there was a Reverse Rapture, and all those people who thought they were going to lifted up to heaven were lifted up and then plunged into hell?

It would show that God has a sense of humor.

 

[rightwinger]

I'm sure Rapture will occur once California has gay marriage

 

[Montrovant]

 

[PratchettFan]

No sweat. I am a hard core fiscal conservative but I support and fight for equal rights for everyone.
Gay folk do not bother me and who gives a shit if they get married?
Let them be miserable like the rest of us!

My wife assures me that I am not miserable.

 

[MaryL]

What is worse: a bunch of perverts that are allowed marry each other, or bunch of religious cultist that feel impotent because they can't stop perverts from marrying each other? I am not feeling much sympathy for the homosexuals or the theists. If two people come together and make a baby want to and stay with each other to raise children, that alone deserves respect and protection of that institution of marriage. The rest of this issue is a twisted train wreck of logic and prejudice.

 

[bodecea]

That's the movie where the Mother shoots her own daughter in the head, right?

 

[PratchettFan]

What is worse: a bunch of perverts that are allowed marry each other, or bunch of religious cultist that feel impotent because they can't stop perverts from marrying each other? I am not feeling much sympathy for the homosexuals or the theists. If two people come together and make a baby want to and stay with each other to raise children, that alone deserves respect and protection of that institution of marriage. The rest of this issue is a twisted train wreck of logic and prejudice.

After my mother died, my father met another woman and remarried. He was 78 at the time and his new wife was 65. They failed to make a baby, so I guess that marriage was a twisted train wreck of logic and prejudice. Funny how he didn't see it that way. I guess that's what comes from being a pervert.

 

[Montrovant]

That's the movie where the Mother shoots her own daughter in the head, right?

Yes. She believes god wants her to do it.

Actually, in the movie, that turns out to be true.

 

[Gadawg73]

What is worse: a bunch of perverts that are allowed marry each other, or bunch of religious cultist that feel impotent because they can't stop perverts from marrying each other? I am not feeling much sympathy for the homosexuals or the theists. If two people come together and make a baby want to and stay with each other to raise children, that alone deserves respect and protection of that institution of marriage. The rest of this issue is a twisted train wreck of logic and prejudice.

Most folk that have babies never marry.

 

[FA_Q2]

What is worse: a bunch of perverts that are allowed marry each other, or bunch of religious cultist that feel impotent because they can't stop perverts from marrying each other? I am not feeling much sympathy for the homosexuals or the theists. If two people come together and make a baby want to and stay with each other to raise children, that alone deserves respect and protection of that institution of marriage. The rest of this issue is a twisted train wreck of logic and prejudice.

Most folk that have babies never marry.

I know, tongue and check thread and all BUT can you support this statement? I am not sure that is entirely true.

 

[Gadawg73]

What is worse: a bunch of perverts that are allowed marry each other, or bunch of religious cultist that feel impotent because they can't stop perverts from marrying each other? I am not feeling much sympathy for the homosexuals or the theists. If two people come together and make a baby want to and stay with each other to raise children, that alone deserves respect and protection of that institution of marriage. The rest of this issue is a twisted train wreck of logic and prejudice.

Most folk that have babies never marry.

I know, tongue and check thread and all BUT can you support this statement? I am not sure that is entirely true.

Worded it wrong.
Last year 43% of babies were to single women and another 12% of married women with the father not in the home.

 

[Avatar4321]

There is no rapture. It's a doctrine from the 18-19th century based on misinterpreting the scriptures starting that the righteous will be caught up to meet Christ AT His coming.

 

[Gadawg73]

There is no rapture. It's a doctrine from the 18-19th century based on misinterpreting the scriptures starting that the righteous will be caught up to meet Christ AT His coming.

People misinterpret scriptures?
Really?

 

[Hollie]

There is no rapture. It's a doctrine from the 18-19th century based on misinterpreting the scriptures starting that the righteous will be caught up to meet Christ AT His coming.

People misinterpret scriptures?
Really?

+1.
I've always found sarcasm to be among the most ingenious of literary devices.

 

[turzovka]

There is no rapture. It's a doctrine from the 18-19th century based on misinterpreting the scriptures starting that the righteous will be caught up to meet Christ AT His coming.

People misinterpret scriptures?
Really?

+1.
I've always found sarcasm to be among the most ingenious of literary devices.

Also, a false and dangerous excuse to ignore it (scripture) altogether.

(for the record, though: I as a Catholic reject the Rapture teaching as well.)

 

[Hollie]

People misinterpret scriptures?
Really?

+1.
I've always found sarcasm to be among the most ingenious of literary devices.

Also, a false and dangerous excuse to ignore it (scripture) altogether.

(for the record, though: I as a Catholic reject the Rapture teaching as well.)

How do you determine which parts of the bible you accept vs. which parts are to be rejected? Which verses are gospel and which are not? Does this relate to specific portions of the bible as well? For instance, is the English translation "verified " as a proper language by which these gospel words are delivered (I believe the Koran is considered corrupt by fundamentalists the moment it is translated out of Arabic). Can one sentence be gospel, the next not, the next two yes, the rest no? What is the standard by which this is judged?

I think you can see I'm being facetious here, but it really is the underlying context of your approach. Sure, you can pick and choose whatever you want, and think you are right -- but you have no baseline by which to assess whether or not you are interpreting things correctly.

And that means your moral and ethical foundation is, by definition, on tenuous ground.

 

[turzovka]

+1.
I've always found sarcasm to be among the most ingenious of literary devices.

Also, a false and dangerous excuse to ignore it (scripture) altogether.

(for the record, though: I as a Catholic reject the Rapture teaching as well.)

How do you determine which parts of the bible you accept vs. which parts are to be rejected? Which verses are gospel and which are not? Does this relate to specific portions of the bible as well? For instance, is the English translation "verified " as a proper language by which these gospel words are delivered (I believe the Koran is considered corrupt by fundamentalists the moment it is translated out of Arabic). Can one sentence be gospel, the next not, the next two yes, the rest no? What is the standard by which this is judged?

I think you can see I'm being facetious here, but it really is the underlying context of your approach. Sure, you can pick and choose whatever you want, and think you are right -- but you have no baseline by which to assess whether or not you are interpreting things correctly.

And that means your moral and ethical foundation is, by definition, on tenuous ground.

Well, for starters, I do not need the Bible to have faith in Jesus Christ, not just faith, but assurance of it all. It may begin with faith via parental instruction and Church attendance and teachings, but if one pursues it as an adult it becomes very clear and certain (as it has for me).

There is ample empirical evidence for Jesus Christ as there is for the authority of the Catholic Church.

So to answer your question now: I rely on the Catholic Church to interpret Scripture, simple as that. Also, as noted in Matthew 16:18-19 ---- "I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it. I give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatsoever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."

We are on solid ground. Whatsoever the Church teaches shall be honored as bound in heaven.