I never said anything about being sanctified by the bible, or the church. We got married in a church, but mainly because we liked the way it looked, (cute little chapel in the mountains, white with green trim......)......sorry, I got sidetracked.
The institution of marriage today has legal implications. It concerns property rights, and there are tax implications, and family mores, and yes, the church claims domination over the institution.
You happen to be Gay, and you want all the benefits and rights that go with marriage? Fine. Get a lawyer and do wills. Almost all health plans today recognize "domestic partners" which includes same sex partners. You want the tax breaks, find your congress person and beat them into submission. You want kids, go adopt. I don't know of any states that don't allow same sex couples to adopt. If you happen to live in one that does, move.
You aren't Catholic are you? If you were, you'd know that the church has to sanctify a marriage and they got all kinds of special purgatory things for divorce. Devout Catholics understand that not following the rules will leave them in HELL when they die.

I mean, what is it you want to accomplish with this? Be like heterosexuals? Be accepted? I guess I just don't understand why this is such a huge issue. And if you do want "marriage" go make up your own civil institution. Maybe then someday, heterosexuals will be banging on your door, wanting to be admitted to your secret club. Especially if you manage to avoid the whole divorce court thing.

 

There are only 2 possibilities. Either all religions are wrong; or they are all wrong but one. The history of this planet is riddled with death and destruction by those trying to prove that theirs is the ONE. To prove it you have to convert others, kill them off or out breed them. The more serious your attempt to prove yours is the one, the less likely you actually believe that yours is the one.

 

We are to seek the knowledge to end human suffering. Not to cause it.

 

and yet religion is one of the main apposers to science

intresting that

 

View attachment ​

 

No, no, no. Antichrist does not mean that, at all.

You are confusing an eschatological concept with Hollywood pablum puke (the Damien movies).

 

No no no! It isn't ANTI-christ, it was mispelled years ago, the real word was:
ANTE-CHRIST, meaning coming before Christ.

Geez, lets get this thing corrected. However I'm not exactly sure who this ANTE-CHRIST was, perhaps King Herod?

And the ONLY TRUE CHURCH is the CHURCH OF ORAL SEX, of which I am the reigning Pope, Pope Shirley.

 

+10, with a big gold star!!!!!

Thank you, Empress! :rose:

Remarkable, how the first people to appeal to the Bible have not read it, and do not understand what is in it.

"Antichrist" does not appear in the Bible. But if it were in the Bible, it would definitely be spelled with an 'e', not an 'i'.

Nor is "Antichrist," i.e., the diametric opposite of Jesus Christ, a valid eschatalogical concept.

ANTE-Christ is the correct interpretation. The Book of Revelations prognosticates the appearance upon the world of a hugely popular charismatic ruler who precedes the second coming of Christ. Thus, the proper term for this ruler, if we are to use the "Hollywood-style" lingo, is ante-Christ, meaning, "Before Christ," as in antebellum and antediluvian.

This charismatic ruler is not "bad." He is not "evil," or "Satan," or "Mephistopheles," or the "opposite" of Christ. He is just the presumptive world ruler who comes before.

Curiously, people tend to go berserk when Barack Obama is accused of being the Antichrist, but they should not be offended. What this means, properly, is that Barack Obama is the hugely popular, presumptive world ruler who comes before. That, and nothing more.

Also curiously, the same people who go berserk over claims that Barack Obama is the Antichrist typically retort that George Bush the Younger is much more Anti-Christ-like. Because they do not know what the word means.

Finally, the Book of Revelations does contain another famous figure: The Beast. Yeah, the destroyer of worlds, the Great Satan, the harbinger of the end of days, he of the number 666, he who stood beside Jesus on a promontory and promised to Him all that he surveyed, if only He would recant His love for the Father, and so forth, and so on. Completely different person, people. I am an atheist, and I know this! Read your Bibles, people! The Beast comes AFTER the Antichrist! Sheesh! That's why Christ returns! As the lion! To fight the last war!

Ugh. Where were we, anyway?

Oh, yeah. Gay marriage. Did I mention I oppose it?

 

In the King James version it is spelled "antichrist." The antichrist is mentioned four times: he is mentioned three times in the First Epistle of St. John; he is mentioned once in the Second Epistle of St. John.

According to the non Fundamentalist scholarly consensus the Gospel of St. John, and the two epistles, although not Revelation, were written not by the apostle St. John, but by a disciple of that apostle who knew him personally, and who had written accounts by the apostle.

These are the four verses where the antichrist is mentioned:

1 John 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

1 John 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

1 John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

2 John 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

 

I am not an atheist. My only concern about gay marriage is that I do not want this issue to hurt the Democrats. Since the 1960s the Democrats have gotten into trouble with issues like this. Popular opinion is shifting in favor of gay marriage, but it might be too soon for a Democratic president to be openly in favor of it.

 

We keep hearing that popular opinion is shifting toward gay marriage, but we are told this by the Ivy-bred mainstream press, which (hush) just might have a teensy-weensy left-leaning bias.

Yet gay marriage has never won a majority in a statewide popular referendum.

So I do not know if I can believe it. There is certainly no objective basis on which to believe it.

That said, I would not be too nervous, if I were a Democrat. True, Obama is currently trailing in the Ras and several left/mainstream polls. But attention spans are short, and it is only May. I still think Romney has a fighting chance at best. Too many people just can't vote for him. I am one of them. I've been saying it ever since December, and I really do mean it. I really do not know what I am going to do.

 

Support for Gay Marriage Outweighs Opposition in Polls

The New York Times May 9, 2012, 4:52 PM

President Obama’s decision to endorse same-sex marriage undoubtedly entails some political risk, but recent polls suggest that public opinion is increasingly on his side.

According to surveys included in the PollingReport.com database, an average of 50 percent of American adults support same-sex marriage rights while 45 percent oppose it, based on an average of nine surveys conducted in the past year.

This is a reversal from earlier periods: support for same-sex marriage has been increasing, and opposition to it has been decreasing, at a relatively steady rate of perhaps two or three percentage points a year since 2004.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...r-gay-marriage-outweighs-opposition-in-polls/

 

For First Time, Majority of Americans Favor Legal Gay Marriage

Gallup May 20, 2011

PRINCETON, NJ -- For the first time in Gallup's tracking of the issue, a majority of Americans (53%) believe same-sex marriage should be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages. The increase since last year came exclusively among political independents and Democrats. Republicans' views did not change.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/first-time-majority-americans-favor-legal-gay-marriage.aspx

 

I wonder how many people realize the King James Bible is a translation. Everybody I meet seems to think Jesus talked like that. Jesus was not English, or American you know. He was an Arab Jew.

 

First of all, the Arabs are considered to be a distinctively different branch of Semites than the Jews. They were considered to be different during Biblical times. The Old Testament claims Arabs to be descended from Ishmael. Ishmael was the first son of Abraham, although not by his wife.

Second, there are Protestant Fundamentalists who think that the King James translation is divinely inspired, and that other translations are not.

http://www.chick.com/bible/

There are even Protestant Fundamentalists who think modern translations are a thing of the Devil. This is because doctrines they glean from the King James version cannot be found in modern translations.

This is not a consensus among Protestant Fundamentalists. Many have difficulty reading the King James version, and prefer modern translations where the translators assert Biblical inerrancy.

 

For the purpose of keeping everyone in our society happy, I would like to see somthing middle ground. Allow gay couples to be legally unioned together, but, not actually call it marriage. Just call it a civil union.

 

You are right. I am wrong.

The term is not used in Revelations, but it does appear in the Epistles, which come afterward.

The Epistles of John do mention Anti, in the context of an opposite or deceiver. It is spelled that way in the Douay, too.

Is it your sense that the term is used by Christian fundamentalists solely in the context of opposite/anti? Because that is not the sense I get at all. "Antichrist" in popular culture tends to be associated with the end of the world, which is why I push back when it is used in association with Revelation/Apocalypse.

The Epistles are not about the end of the world. In those letters, John is proselytizing, promoting the new faith.

In any case, let me stress I am not waffling or trying to make excuses. Steve-vme clearly used the term solely in the context of opposite/anti, so I think we got on his case wrongly for using it that way.

 

I did some checking on my own, when DL showed me that I had made a mistake.

The word is spelled with an 'i' in the Epistles of John in the Douay, in the Revised Standard Version (RSV), and most notably in The New English version (NEB), which is generally regarded as the most accurate translation to English that exists.

More importantly, the Epistles of John most definitely use the word in the context of "opposite/anti."

I just have a thing against seeing the word used in the context of end-of-days, because it is improper in that sense. Not because misuse of the term offends my faith (I have none), but because I have a thing against Hollywood and how its product rots the brain. (I suppose I am an example of that! )

 

BTW, I don't abide most polls. Instruments such as the Gallup neglect large segments that are not responsive to its collection instruments, and growing number of people simply are not poll-responsive.

We've been hearing that support for gay marriage is pulling ahead and topping 50%, yet it is still trounced everywhere it is put on a ballot.

 

I posted two polls that indicate that support for gay marriage is increasing. I challenge anyone to post credible polls that show a decline in support for gay marriage. The polls do not indicate intensity of feeling about the issue. That is probably why anti gay marriage ballots pass.

Opinion is clearly moving in the direction of gay marriage, so it is a good idea for the Democratic Party to get in front of this issue. The next election may be too soon for the Democrats, and especially President Obama to benefit, however.