• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Indiana GOP passes law making it a crime for clergy to perform gay weddings

davidtaylorjr said:
Not to my knowledge, however, Luke is the one that recorded the event, not Paul.
Click to expand...

Why are you avoiding my question? You made a statement that Paul met Jesus. I asked for the verse(s) where "the other Apostles say Paul met Jesus in the flesh".

You have failed to answer this atheist's questions several times. You see, a religious education can provide the knowledge which leads one away from faith. My first professor of religious studies had been a believer, an actual minister of an evangelical church, until various events in his life including nearly dying in a car wreck one night, caused him to rethink the subject of faith.



NONE, not one of the 12 wrote a word of the text you know as the New Testament. The Epistles were written before any of the Gospels and Revelations had quite a history of rejection by the early church fathers before it was accepted into the canon in the late 4th Century
 
Last edited:
Somerville said:
Why are you avoiding my question? You made a statement that Paul met Jesus. I asked for the verse(s) where "the other Apostles say Paul met Jesus in the flesh".

You have failed to answer this atheist's questions several times. You see, a religious education can provide the knowledge which leads one away from faith. My first professor of religious studies had been a believer, an actual minister of an evangelical church, until various events in his life including nearly dying in a car wreck one night, caused him to rethink the subject of faith.
Click to expand...

I wasn't avoiding your claim. Luke, and apostle and writer of one Gospel, was the one who told about Paul and the road to Damascus. I'm not sure how that was avoiding your question...
 
If you knew a 30 something year old man who never married, didn't have a girlfriend, but who spent all his time hanging out with other guys, wouldn't you wonder about his sexual orientation?
 
Why is a stupid fairy tale being used as the basis for anything?
 
Wiggen said:
Thanks for the history lesson. I never knew Abe Lincoln was a Republican! Of course times have changed. It's the Republicans firmly in the doorway as far as women, minorities, are concerned.
Click to expand...

If you are referring to the race based quota system then yes Republicans are generally against it. Democrats have always been in favor of such if they could not outright ban minorities from a place at the table; and after their loss in the 1960s in the Civil right movement they had to change their strategy somewhat but is still of manipulation and control of minorities as much as they can.



and I must respectfully disagree with you regarding Libertarians. Any political organization that includes racists like the Paul family is pretty dumb.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind I was referring to libertarian philosophy and I view policies as an outcomes value than intent. Keep in mind also Paul Rand is not his father Ron Paul it was Ron Paul that had some racist views and that was more typical given his age.
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
If you want to get into history you should read up on the Southern Strategy. It used to be the way you say. It isn't now.

I don't think libertarians are dumb. They're just not realizing that the world is more complicated than Econ 101.
Click to expand...

I'll agree that the world is more complicated that Econ 101 but if you can forgive the analogy, libertarians just using Newtonian Physics to Study Cosmology is the Econ 101 example then the use by both Parties (really) of Keynesian and variants is like using Aristotelian Physics to study the same. And even then Keynesian economics would require the government to stop spending beyond as much when the economy has recovered. So even that is not adhered to so it is just allays spend more money. In this the Econ 101 is better that what is being offered now.
 
Wiggen said:
Nothing is too crazy for the Republicans these days. It's like they have a contest to see who can come up with the dumbest idea. the fact that this one may well be unconstitutional is just an added bonus to the lunacy.
Click to expand...

I'm proud to be from Indiana, where the definition of marriage is still 'the union of a MAN and a WOMAN'. If it was as you wish I only have one thing to ask: When can a man marry a cow, or a woman marry a dog? It's just a matter of time for those to happen if you would get your way now.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
Defnitely not Christian.
Click to expand...

Because YOU are the mind of God and get to define everything for us and for Him.

That's the problem I have with people like you. You pick and choose sins to revile (largely excepting your own) and then claim that others who worship differently from you are apostates.

That is NOT faith. It's arrogance. If you are a person of faith, then you accept that God is mystery. If you believe the Bible is the word of God, then you should also accept that in reading it, man has flaws and thus can never truly know the mind of God.

The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.

Once you believe you know everything, you are on a righteous path to hell.

Of course, all of this ignores that we have a Constitution, which, when it comes to matters of law, trumps the Bible every time.
 
MarkFW said:
I'm proud to be from Indiana, where the definition of marriage is still 'the union of a MAN and a WOMAN'. If it was as you wish I only have one thing to ask: When can a man marry a cow, or a woman marry a dog? It's just a matter of time for those to happen if you would get your way now.
Click to expand...

If the dogs and cows were in on the discussion, then yes, there might be grounds for debate.

As it stands, however, it's no-go.
 
MarkFW said:
I'm proud to be from Indiana, where the definition of marriage is still 'the union of a MAN and a WOMAN'. If it was as you wish I only have one thing to ask: When can a man marry a cow, or a woman marry a dog? It's just a matter of time for those to happen if you would get your way now.
Click to expand...

First off a cow or dog would have to have the ability to enter into a legally binding contract.
 
winston53660 said:
First off a cow or dog would have to have the ability to enter into a legally binding contract.
Click to expand...

Just a small leap for somebody else to say 'My cow told me she wanted this'. Really, if you can change this law you can change most any law.
 
FilmFestGuy said:
Because YOU are the mind of God and get to define everything for us and for Him.

That's the problem I have with people like you. You pick and choose sins to revile (largely excepting your own) and then claim that others who worship differently from you are apostates.

That is NOT faith. It's arrogance. If you are a person of faith, then you accept that God is mystery. If you believe the Bible is the word of God, then you should also accept that in reading it, man has flaws and thus can never truly know the mind of God.

The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.

Once you believe you know everything, you are on a righteous path to hell.

Of course, all of this ignores that we have a Constitution, which, when it comes to matters of law, trumps the Bible every time.
Click to expand...

That doesn't describe me at all actually. Thanks for actually trying to get to know me though....wait...
 
davidtaylorjr said:
That doesn't describe me at all actually. Thanks for actually trying to get to know me though....wait...
Click to expand...

I was responding to a post in which you clearly stated that you know what "is" and "isn't" Christianity. Thus, you asserted that you know and get to decide what is and isn't Christian.

You like to claim humility, but you possess the arrogance necessary to deem a church "not Christian."

I can only describe you based on what I've seen here and I feel like it was accurate based on the evidence you present in this forum. You are, obviously, a much more complex person than that. There are probably things that we share in common. Religion and politics are clearly not among those things.
 
FilmFestGuy said:
I was responding to a post in which you clearly stated that you know what "is" and "isn't" Christianity. Thus, you asserted that you know and get to decide what is and isn't Christian.

You like to claim humility, but you possess the arrogance necessary to deem a church "not Christian."

I can only describe you based on what I've seen here and I feel like it was accurate based on the evidence you present in this forum. You are, obviously, a much more complex person than that. There are probably things that we share in common. Religion and politics are clearly not among those things.
Click to expand...

In this one instance, I can speak on fact because it is clearly spelled out in Scripture. That is the basis, nothing more.
 
MarkFW said:
I'm proud to be from Indiana, where the definition of marriage is still 'the union of a MAN and a WOMAN'. If it was as you wish I only have one thing to ask: When can a man marry a cow, or a woman marry a dog? It's just a matter of time for those to happen if you would get your way now.
Click to expand...

 
davidtaylorjr said:
In this one instance, I can speak on fact because it is clearly spelled out in Scripture. That is the basis, nothing more.
Click to expand...

It speaks clearly on a LOT of things that people do, and yet, those people still call themselves Christian and no one seems to mind.
 
Perfect example of other people, groups and government having their collective noses WAAAAY too far up the backsides of US citizens. Pathetic. And these nosy people defend their bigotry with... religion? I will never understand. Ever. Still waiting for a decent LEGALLY sound argument against this.... All I get is preaching or crickets.

Yawn


…fearing not that I’d become my enemy, in the instant that I preach…
-Bob Dylan, My Back Pages
 
Somerville said:
Your logic is not. It does not compute.
Click to expand...

Probably because I'm far too merciful to appeal to simple logic. You see, logic quickly informs us that homosexuality itself adds nothing of value to any society, but it does add numerous social and health issues, and so ought to be treated as a disease and controllable public burden, if we were to be "logical."


It always amuses me when people appeal to excessive logic in human affair. Oh, logic it has its place, a minor one. People fail to grasp that logic is utterly pitiless, and would grant no quarter to the infirm the defective, the unproductive, the disruptive, the deviant, the weak, the non-compliant, the sick or the old. Anyone at all who has a net negative value to society, or is even surplus to it should logically be culled. Once upon a time, the French experimented with applying such extreme rationality to their society; history remembers the period as The Terror.
 
Oftencold said:
Probably because I'm far too merciful to appeal to simple logic. You see, logic quickly informs us that homosexuality itself adds nothing of value to any society, but it does add numerous social and health issues, and so ought to be treated as a disease and controllable public burden, if we were to be "logical."


It always amuses me when people appeal to excessive logic in human affair. Oh, logic it has its place, a minor one. People fail to grasp that logic is utterly pitiless, and would grant no quarter to the infirm the defective, the unproductive, the disruptive, the deviant, the weak, the non-compliant, the sick or the old. Anyone at all who has a net negative value to society, or is even surplus to it should logically be culled. Once upon a time, the French experimented with applying such extreme rationality to their society; history remembers the period as The Terror.
Click to expand...


With every post you show your true colours - have fun in that imaginary world.
 
Papa bull said:
Nice try but it fails as a comparison. Except for the race, the marriage would have been otherwise legal in any state. Same sex marriage requires the fundamental definition of marriage to be changed. You just don't want to get this, do you?
Click to expand...

The exact same conditions now exists when it comes to same sex marriages. If not for the sex/gender, the marriages would be legal in any state.

It is only your personal definition of marriage that has problems, not the legal definition.
 
MarkFW said:
I'm proud to be from Indiana, where the definition of marriage is still 'the union of a MAN and a WOMAN'. If it was as you wish I only have one thing to ask: When can a man marry a cow, or a woman marry a dog? It's just a matter of time for those to happen if you would get your way now.
Click to expand...

When a cow or a dog can actually consent to sign into any legal contract.
 
MarkFW said:
Just a small leap for somebody else to say 'My cow told me she wanted this'. Really, if you can change this law you can change most any law.
Click to expand...

No it's not. Men and women are both able to sign legal contracts, including marriage contracts. Your argument fails logic analyses of any kind.
 
rocket88 said:
Thank you. Someone on the right who gets it.
Click to expand...

Except it was explained a couple of posts up. So, had the OP been truthful, my response would have been accurate. This wasn't truthful, so I retract my statement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom