Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Because one day you might through no fault of your own end up poor too ... then you'll be glad of it.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

No I wouldn't.
As I've posted about 4 times in this thread (maybe you should read em) gays are asking for their union to be legally recognised, not a marriage

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Just because some far right philosopher with a chip on her shoulder says it doesn't make it true, it is her rather unusual opinion. She may argue it, but I see countless flaws in her logic. By her definitions an absolute Monarchy would be left wing.:rolleyes:

BTW have you seen this game - I'd like to see how your country turns out:
http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi


So let me get this straight, you support the dog eat dog, survival of the fittest, right wing capitalism, yet reject evolution (the same principles).

You are orthodox Christian, yet reject the unconditional love of Jesus Christ.

You support the American constitution yet believe religion should influence the government George Orwell invented a word for this - it was 'doublethink'

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

With regards to Darwin, it does amaze me the number of religious people who denounce his theories even though they have never even gone near his work let alone actually read it :rolleyes:

I remember the JW's trying to use the "how can an eye evolve?" question.
Darwin actually answered many questions like this in his work, but that's ignored by the creationists because they don't want their questions answered, or maybe it is just because they've never actually bothered to read his work prefering to listen to the uneducated opinions of their religious colleagues (uneducated in that their religious colleagues have also not bothered to read Darwin)

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Jerrek has his dating methods confused, although there is some truth to the conclusion he's trying to draw. Radiocarbon dating is claimed effective back to approximately 70,000 years BP (Before Present). Beyond that, there is too little Carbon-14 remaining in the object for its ongoing decay to be detected. You's reright, Doc, in that C-14 dating only works on organic matter.

Potassium-Argon dating, on the other hand, is a geologist's tool for dating rock claimed to be more than 100,000 years old and up to 4.3 billion years old (the apparent age of Earth). It measures the rate of decay of potassium in volcanic rocks into argon gas. What the geologists don't like to admit is that if the rock sample has ever been immersed in water, its apparent age becomes vastly greater. And those who argue for a 'young Earth' generally also argue that the entire planet was flooded by water at one point.

What's this got to do with gay marriage? :confused:

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

But that would only affect the surface rocks not rock that has been ejected from the mantle by volcanoes.

Your guess is as good as mine :)

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Spot on :)

Post # 147

Talk about going around in circles :erm:

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Remember there has been not ONE archeological descovery which has proven the Bible wrong.

The problem with the links you provide is that the site seems to take a very anti-creationalism stance, so can hardly be seen as independant. I must follow this up however with ackowledging that a great many pro-creationalism site are also very anti-evolution. This leaves the only option of it being up to the individual to decide for himself/herself.

Back on to the main subject - I don't think people on my side of the argument are against gays having some kind of ceremony, it's just to call it marriage would go against what *we* believe it should be for. And if the main thing most gays want is just recognition and legal rights as couples, I'm sure we can all meet in the middle somewhere.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

What about the dead sea scrolls - Did they not cause some concern a while back ?

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

That's only because acheological findings can't be used to prove a philosophical idea.
It's like trying to disprove nuclear fusion with biology.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Yes, they showed that the way the Old Testament is written today is exactly the same way it was written in ancient times, thereby disproving the theories of those who try to say the wording of the OT has been changed over hundreds of years to suit any given purpose.

Not quite, it means that the dates, times, circumstances etc mentioned in the Bible have not been proven wrong by any descoveries.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

But the dates etc aren't part of the philosophical idea that is the religion.

Of course there's the "world flood" mentioned in the bible which was actually localised to the black sea...

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Surely the fact that Dinosaurs are now know not to have co-existed with humans disproves some of the statements above that say they were told of in the bible (book of job I beleve). :confused:

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

I think the Bible may well prove that people noticed events such as floods inundating them or people being convicted and executed and wrote about it. Quite why you should base your beliefs and behaviour around this escapes me. After all you can read much the same thing in your local paper.

It would be bizarre if the Bible were completely made up, but perfectly logical that it should refer to historical events. The question remains, why do you base your behaviour and belief system on it?

Apart from being printed on paper in English, rather than written on papyrus, animal skins and copper, in the Hebrew and Aramaic languages with little punctuation. In fact 'not written in exactly the same way as it was written in ancient times' would appear to sum it up*

*Unless Russ actually reads it in Hebrew and Aramaic from papyrus and animal skins with no punctuation in which case I marvel at his dedication.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Didn't they just re-translate the nativity and found that the three men might not have been men, nor wise?