President Obama Endorses Gay Marriage

estebanrey · 10 May 2012 at 16:16

Hatter The Mad said:
You're right - anyone who does actually believe in that or the bible is desperately delusional.

aye

estebanrey · 10 May 2012 at 16:21

boxman2000 said:
With all due respect, please pick up a King James bible and take a read of the book of John, that book sums things up perfectly from Jesus' birth to death, explaining who He was and those in His life.

Why would I want to read something that has been traslated so many times you can no longer place any weight on what it says?

The King James is only an opinion of a translation of an interpretation of the original Hebrew scripts. How can you trust man's translations?

wildman · 10 May 2012 at 16:22

boxman2000 said:
I didn't compare myself to Jesus but by definition, a Christian is a 'Christ follower'. The bible teaches us that when we give our lives to Christ that we actually have Him living in us, in the person of the Holy Spirit.

.

that explains why all these priests are into altar boys then....................... they are simply giving them a Jesus injection ?

RDM · 10 May 2012 at 16:40

If you say something like this:

boxman2000 said:
This is the reason why religious threads just don't work because people talk about subject they know a little, but not a lot about.

And you follow it up with this:

boxman2000 said:
... I am not a Catholic and there is a very clear definition between that and Christianity...

It is actually quite amusing. Sorry to burst your bubble here but Catholics are Christians. Don't make me break out a venn diagram here!

boxman2000 said:
With all due respect, please pick up a King James bible and take a read of the book of John, that book sums things up perfectly from Jesus' birth to death, explaining who He was and those in His life.

The King James? Really? Not the version of the bible I woud recommend to someone new to Christian teaching.

RDM · 10 May 2012 at 16:43

boxman2000 said:
I'm not denying that people had their own ceremonies in which the promise between man/wife remain faithful to each other, whether pagan or any other religion. Sorry but marriage has been around for thousands of years. Of course as I said earlier, tradition and culture have shaped the ceremony into what it is today, this is more recent and yes probably in the last 200 years.

Technically marriage is the union of man and woman, i.e. sex. (Matthew 19:5). The example of the woman caught in adultery in John chapter 8 isn’t necessarily that she was ceremonially married (i.e. public wedding service) but physically married and had multiple partners.

It is important to realise though that the Christian definition of marriage is not the only definition of marriage and not the only example of marriage. I am perfectly happy for Christian organisations (such as the Catholic Church) to keep their own definition of marriage, what I struggle with is allowing them to force their definition of marriage on to others. What gives you the right to force your definition of marriage on to everyone else?

I will also ignore your Adam and Steve remark on the vague hopes that you are not actually buying in to that utter rubbish.

estebanrey · 10 May 2012 at 17:14

At least he's not religious.

Tyron · 10 May 2012 at 17:32

RDM said:
It is actually quite amusing. Sorry to burst your bubble here but Catholics are Christians. Don't make me break out a venn diagram here!

Wow you just owned yourself indeed. He did not say they weren't the same, but there is a distinction, like a pitbull and boxer are from the same mamal but a different breed

There is a big dfference between Catholics and Christians which you clearly know nothing about.

estebanrey · 10 May 2012 at 17:38

Tyron said:
Wow you just owned yourself indeed. He did not say they weren't the same, but there is a distinction, like a pitbull and boxer are from the same mamal but a different breed

There is a big dfference between Catholics and Christians which you clearly know nothing about.

So basically, Catholicism and Christianity are different brands of the same rubbish.

RDM · 10 May 2012 at 17:40

Tyron said:
Wow you just owned yourself indeed. He did not say they weren't the same, but there is a distinction, like a pitbull and boxer are from the same mamal but a different breed

There is a big dfference between Catholics and Christians which you clearly know nothing about.

What on earth are you bleeting about now?

OK, just for you.

All Catholics are Christians but not all Christians are Catholic. Therefore to say there is a difference between the collective "Christians" and the individual "Catholics" is incorrect. What you would need to say is that there is a difference between "Methodists" and "Catholics" or indeed even "Prodestants" and "Catholics". Or even "Catholics" and "other Christians". You cannot however say that Catholics and Christians are different because Catholics are Christians.

The largest Christian denomination are the Catholics, the rest of the Churches (apart from a very few) are actually offshoots from the Catholic Church.

RDM · 10 May 2012 at 17:41

estebanrey said:
So basically, Catholicism and Christianity are different brands of the same rubbish.

No, not at all. Catholicism is a "brand" of Christianity. Think of Christianity as trainers and Catholicism as Nike.

Tyron · 10 May 2012 at 17:45

Pull sources out from your behind again?

Both sects have similarities but predominantly believe different aspects.

You amuse me when you pull up something without a link and claim you know something about the subject

estebanrey · 10 May 2012 at 17:46

RDM said:
No, not at all. Catholicism is a "brand" of Christianity. Think of Christianity as trainers and Catholicism as Nike.

I know mate, I was being flippant

estebanrey · 10 May 2012 at 17:47

Tyron said:
Pull sources out from your behind again?

Both sects have similarities but predominantly believe different aspects.

You amuse me when you pull up something without a link and claim you know something about the subject

Have you ever posted a link to "prove" any of your opinions, I don't think you have.

Naffa · 10 May 2012 at 17:49

estebanrey said:
Have you ever posted a link to "prove" any of your opinions, I don't think you have.

Just don't bother engaging with Tyron. If you stop talking to him, he will think that he has beaten you, and will be content in that 'knowledge', and fade away. That makes me feel happy.

RDM · 10 May 2012 at 17:49

Tyron said:
Pull sources out from your behind again?

Both sects have similarities but predominantly believe different aspects.

You amuse me when you pull up something without a link and claim you know something about the subject

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Christianity

Knock yourself out.

Feel free to provide links to back up your assertion that Catholics are not Christians or a different religion to "Christians". To use your own dog analogy Christianity is Canis lupus familiaris whilst Catholicism is the Pitbull. This is really simple stuff, even you should be able to grasp it.

RDM · 10 May 2012 at 17:50

estebanrey said:
I know mate, I was being flippant

Ah, but you were being inaccurately flippant, much better to be accurately flippant.

Tyron · 10 May 2012 at 19:04

estebanrey said:
Have you ever posted a link to "prove" any of your opinions, I don't think you have.

Of course I have check the thread. Im not like Naffa who contributes nothing and tries to be relevant to the discussion.

Tyron · 10 May 2012 at 19:05

RDM said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Christianity

Show me where I am wrong in your link.

RDM · 10 May 2012 at 19:09

Tyron said:
Show me where I am wrong in your link.

2.1 Now where are your links proving you right? Put up or shut up perhaps?

estebanrey · 10 May 2012 at 19:11

RDM said:
Ah, but you were being inaccurately flippant, much better to be accurately flippant.

The inaccuracy came from Tyron, I was just repeating his inaccuracy back to him with added flippancy