Re: Referendum on gay marriage? : Fri May 24, 2013 4:02 pm  

El Barbudo wrote:

You call that a "logical conclusion"?
I don't.

My gob is still smacked.

El Barbudo wrote:

Now you have returned ... it is noted that you are still avoiding the straight answer to my earlier question.

Oh, I see what you did there.

Re: Referendum on gay marriage? : Fri May 24, 2013 4:07 pm  

Mintball wrote:

Oh, I see what you did there.

Touche !
Hadn't seen that.

Re: Referendum on gay marriage? : Fri May 24, 2013 4:27 pm  

El Barbudo wrote:

Dally, do you deny what I said or have you reverted to your tried and tested tactic of exiting the thread ... in this instance one that you created?

Yes. Just thought I ought to get some work done!

Re: Referendum on gay marriage? : Fri May 24, 2013 4:48 pm  

Dally wrote:

Yes. Just thought I ought to get some work done!

I take that "Yes" means you do deny what I said.
So, do you therefore accept that a gay couple's love for each other is just as valid as that of a straight couple?

Re: Referendum on gay marriage? : Fri May 24, 2013 6:28 pm  

Rock God X wrote:

Your 'evidence', as has been pointed out to you by several posters, is bollox.

No it hasn't. All that has been pointed out to me is that you and a few others think it is bollox. Not the same thing at all.

It's about context, you halfwit.

I just love it when people know they are losing an argument and have to resort to personal insult.

When you were trying to make out like the Old Testament was somehow irrelevant to the discussion, ...

I didn't imply the Old Testament was irrelevant to the discussion. What you infer is your own prerogative of course. That you have failed to understand the role of Jesus in being the fulfilment of the Jewish Law simply reveals your ignorance on this subject. So really I would stop now because to those who do have an understanding, you are looking silly.

I wasn't asking whether Jesus was also known as 'The Word', but how the Old Testament could be so easily dismissed to suit the religious argument if it is indeed believed to be (as Pope Francis points out) 'the speech of God as it is put down in writing'.

I understand 'the Word of God' in relation to the Biblical texts as meaning 'God inspired'. In other words, people were inspired by their interaction with their God to write what they wrote. What Pope Francis believes is only relevant to Catholics since the rest of the Christian world doesn't believe popes are valid. So far as Catholics are concerned, you would need to ask them whether they thought 'the Word of God' was a literal copying of God's speech.

Instead of blowing insults out of your backside you may think first whether really you should be writing about something you patently don't comprehend. Had you comprehended, you would have first considered which form of Christianity was under discussion: protestant or Roman Catholic, for example, as a starting point. You might then have phrased your question appropriately to elicit the kind of response you wanted.

Re: Referendum on gay marriage? : Fri May 24, 2013 6:44 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

No it hasn't. All that has been pointed out to me is that you and a few others think it is bollox. Not the same thing at all.

You were shown to be utterly and completely factually wrong on the simple matter of who could perform marriages without the aid of a registrar.






Oh, I how lurve the smell of büllshit in the evening.

Re: Referendum on gay marriage? : Fri May 24, 2013 8:47 pm  

Mintball wrote:

You were shown to be utterly and completely factually wrong on the simple matter of who could perform marriages without the aid of a registrar.

I wasn't shown to be anything. You didn't provide any evidence that this is the case. So once again, it's just you writing it on an internet message board, which means zip to me.

I will check on whether other ministers can also be registrars because if that is now the case then the change has been very recent.

Re: Referendum on gay marriage? : Fri May 24, 2013 8:57 pm  

SaintsFan wrote: I wasn't shown to be anything. You didn't provide any evidence that this is the case. So once again, it's just you writing it on an internet message board, which means zip to me. I will check on whether other ministers can also be registrars because if that is now the case then the change has been very recent. Try CAB The Church of England and the Church in Wales are allowed to register a marriage at the same time as performing the religious ceremony. Ministers and priests of all other religions can be authorised to register marriages and must have a certificate or licence to do so from the local Superintendent Registrar. For Jewish and Quaker marriages, the authorisation is automatic. For all other religions, if the official performing the ceremony is not authorised, either a Registrar must attend the religious ceremony or the partners will need to have separate religious and civic ceremonies. It doesn't seem to preclude other denominations as long as the officiating person is registered, presumably in the same way that a CoE vicar would be automatically.

SaintsFan wrote: I wasn't shown to be anything. You didn't provide any evidence that this is the case. So once again, it's just you writing it on an internet message board, which means zip to me. I will check on whether other ministers can also be registrars because if that is now the case then the change has been very recent. Try CAB The Church of England and the Church in Wales are allowed to register a marriage at the same time as performing the religious ceremony. Ministers and priests of all other religions can be authorised to register marriages and must have a certificate or licence to do so from the local Superintendent Registrar. For Jewish and Quaker marriages, the authorisation is automatic. For all other religions, if the official performing the ceremony is not authorised, either a Registrar must attend the religious ceremony or the partners will need to have separate religious and civic ceremonies. It doesn't seem to preclude other denominations as long as the officiating person is registered, presumably in the same way that a CoE vicar would be automatically.

Re: Referendum on gay marriage? : Fri May 24, 2013 9:25 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

I will check on whether other ministers can also be registrars because if that is now the case then the change has been very recent.

1753 is very recent?

Re: Referendum on gay marriage? : Sat May 25, 2013 4:13 am  

SaintsFan wrote:

No it hasn't. All that has been pointed out to me is that you and a few others think it is bollox. Not the same thing at all.

As Mintball (and others) have pointed out, your claims are factually incorrect in a number of areas. And let me state again: your 'evidence' in no way shows that the church may legitimately claim to 'own' the concept of marriage. That it controlled marriage in this country up until a couple of hundred years ago no more gives it the right to claim ownership than the descendants of slave owners have the right to claim ownership of the descendants of slaves.

:lol:

I just love it when people know they are losing an argument and have to resort to personal insult.

I hate to burst your bubble, dear, but posting a link that's totally irrelevant to your claims does not count as 'winning' an argument.

I didn't imply the Old Testament was irrelevant to the discussion. What you infer is your own prerogative of course. That you have failed to understand the role of Jesus in being the fulfilment of the Jewish Law simply reveals your ignorance on this subject. So really I would stop now because to those who do have an understanding, you are looking silly.

Again, you're trying to muddy the waters with irrelevant twaddle. Your claim that the biblical definition of marriage is 'one man and one woman' is demonstrably false. Unless you choose to ignore the OT. Jesus' fulfilment of Jewish Law is irrelevant. If God intended that marriage should only include 'one man and one woman', why would he sanction so many marriages that broke this rule? Did he just change his mind?

What makes you and your fellow God-botherers look silly is your selective reading of the Bible. As soon as the inconsistencies in your arguments are pointed out, you all immediately resort to the 'you don't get it' line. It's transparent and it's ridiculous.

I understand 'the Word of God' in relation to the Biblical texts as meaning 'God inspired'. In other words, people were inspired by their interaction with their God to write what they wrote. What Pope Francis believes is only relevant to Catholics since the rest of the Christian world doesn't believe popes are valid. So far as Catholics are concerned, you would need to ask them whether they thought 'the Word of God' was a literal copying of God's speech.

Instead of blowing insults out of your backside you may think first whether really you should be writing about something you patently don't comprehend. Had you comprehended, you would have first considered which form of Christianity was under discussion: protestant or Roman Catholic, for example, as a starting point. You might then have phrased your question appropriately to elicit the kind of response you wanted.

No, no. It makes no difference whatsoever whether you believe that God dictated the Bible word for word, or that he 'inspired' the authors of the texts to write them on his behalf. There isn't a single Christian denomination that doesn't consider the Bible to be God's word, however the texts were produced. So if we accept that he as (at the very least) approved the contents of the Bible, what reason could we possibly offer for his sudden change of heart on what should constitute the nature of marriage?