Gay Marriage

[Job]

And Jesus was just the Apollo myth reinvented..they even recycled the paintings..you only have to look and if you still think that he actually lived as a real man you need to look up denial in the dictionary.

 

[Killswitch]

It is constantly evolving depending on society. If they had their way they would still be torturing non believers and scientists and scamming the poor.

Certainly religion in general (including Christianity, although mainly in less-developed countries) is still pretty big on punishing apostasy, killing doctors who carry about abortions and scamming the poor. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose and all that.

 

[Killswitch]

And Jesus was just the Apollo myth reinvented..they even recycled the paintings..you only have to look and if you still think that he actually lived as a real man you need to look up denial in the dictionary.

"The longest river in the world, flowing about 6,677 km (4,150 mi) through eastern Africa from its most remote sources in Burundi to a delta on the Mediterranean Sea in northeast Egypt. The main headstreams, the Blue Nile and the White Nile, join at Khartoum in Sudan to form the Nile proper. The river has been used for irrigation in Egypt since at least 4000 b.c., a function now regulated largely by the Aswan High Dam."

I fail to see your point sir!

 

[Scouse]

If a gay couple want to get "Married" in a Registrars Office I doubt the Church would give a single fuck.

They do. They hate the gays and don't want to see them married - inside or outside churches.

Inside churches? Fine. I know some gay people desparately want to get married in religious ceremonies - these gay people are as dumb as the christians who hate them and I have no sympathy with their demonstrably idiotic desire. But I can see no reason why they shouldn't be married outside a church.

You could argue the church should not be allowed to ban gay couples due to their sexuality, in the same way B&B owners can't.

What if it was blacks they decided they didn't like because of some voodoo mumbo jumbo?

You can't have real freedom unless you're free to be a dick. That goes for both of the above.

Correct, however If they come out and say it is because you're gay, they should be prosecuted accordingly. (imo)

Strangely I don't. They should be called cunts and ridiculed and the people who's feelings they've hurt will get over it, in time.

bestiality

Probably shouldn't be illegal too. It's definitely EWWWWWWW IKY!!!11! but if rex doesn't want to be fucked he'll bite yer cock off

They can call it what they want, whether God accepts same sex couples are married is quite another thing.

That's fair enough IMO. So why doesn't the church let God sort it out?

 

[rynnor]

And Jesus was just the Apollo myth reinvented..they even recycled the paintings..you only have to look and if you still think that he actually lived as a real man you need to look up denial in the dictionary.

Actually jesus is a combination of a retelling of the ancient egyptian Osiris myth and some ham fisted re writes to fit jewish prophecy of the special one (all that jerusalem crap just because it was mentioned in the prophecy).

The son of god stuff came a lot later due to mistranslation from greek to latin.

 

[Wazzerphuk]

Oh god (hrhr) I forgot Scouse was a bestial apologist.

Grim.

 

[Raven]

No need to apologise!

 

[Scouse]

Yet we allow cousin inbreeding? I'm not seeing a clear divide here from a logical viewpoint.

The line had to be drawn somewhere - and although I'd still not shag my cousin you can see that genetically speaking it's an actual order of magnitude different in purely genetic terms.

(Cursory google puts the figures of "excess mortality" or "major disability" at ~4% for children of cousins and ~25% for children of siblings).

 

[Killswitch]

Strangely I don't. They should be called cunts and ridiculed and the people who's feelings they've hurt will get over it, in time.

Annoyingly I *almost* agree with this, but at the same time I feel compelled to say it's a crappy argument. Anti-discrimination laws don't exist to stop people's feelings being hurt. No-one has a right not to be offended and if I want to refer to some dude in a wheelchair as "Mr Crippy McCripple" then I will do so, at a high cost to my social standing and immortal soul. However, denying that person equal access to goods or services because of their disability is (and should be) illegal. I see no difference between this and this whole "gay marriage" thing. I think most people would agree that if I founded a religion that called for the handicapped to be beaten to death with croquet mallets because they are an offence to Almighty God or whatever I wouldn't get any legal protection when I banned them from shopping at my No Cripples Allowed Neck Beard Emporium. Just because Christianity's particular fairies at the bottom of the garden have an air of legitimacy about them because they've been around for a while that shouldn't give the adherents of said fairies the right to circumvent laws designed to empower oppressed or mistreated minorities.

 

[Killswitch]

The line had to be drawn somewhere - and although I'd still not shag my cousin you can see that genetically speaking it's an actual order of magnitude different in purely genetic terms.

(Cursory google puts the figures of "excess mortality" or "major disability" at ~4% for children of cousins and ~25% for children of siblings).

If Scouse was any more inbred he'd be a sandwich tbh

 

[Aoami]

Actually jesus is a combination of a retelling of the ancient egyptian Osiris myth and some ham fisted re writes to fit jewish prophecy of the special one (all that jerusalem crap just because it was mentioned in the prophecy).

The son of god stuff came a lot later due to mistranslation from greek to latin.

where do people get this garbage from?

 

[Scouse]

Annoyingly I *almost* agree with this

Not "almost" - you do:

I want to refer to some dude in a wheelchair as "Mr Crippy McCripple" then I will do so, at a high cost to my social standing

And fair enough. As long as it doesn't get physical.

But yes, I'll admit, it's an argument with grey areas. Denial of access to goods and services (and jobs) is one side of it. But freedom of religion (and that religion to be a cunt) is another - as is, IMO, the freedom to run a BnB and not have blacks/gays/jews/whites/poles/aliens in your house.

If you're gay and are pissed off that you can't get married in a church then take it on the chin and realise that your religion is full of shit. Stop whining to lawyers. Get married outside of the church.

For me, the same goes if you're gay and the BnB you want to book doesn't want you. There's fucking bazillions of BnB's - find another one rather than sue. Realise you wouldn't want to be served breakfast by the cunts anyway and spend your cash elsewhere.

I always felt bad for bikers who weren't allowed in some pubs. Several in the Lake District used to have signs outside them saying "no leather jackets or biker helmets". Now those very same pubs are either out of business or gagging for bikers to come around.


But the above is all arguable tbfh. I err on the side of individual freedom.


Oh. And:

If Scouse was any more inbred he'd be a sandwich tbh

 

[Killswitch]

where do people get this garbage from?

Probably from the same place we get most stuff; well-researched conjecture. Most of the Abrahamic religions share a great deal of datapoints with earlier pagan religious stories. The exact path by which the Osiris resurrection mythology might (or might not) have become the Jesus resurrection mythology is unlikely to be found out now, but a lot of the Bible does read pretty much exactly how you'd expect a religious book written by people who's previous experience of religious writings were old pagan stories to read. This doesn't prove or disprove Jesus and the Bible one way or the other, but you have to admit it's a bit fishy. The resurrection, the flood, the creation of women from part of a man, the wise men and the star and even (I think) the creation of the Earth in 6 days are all outlined pretty clearly in texts which predate the widespread adoption of Christianity by (in some cases) hundreds of years.

 

[Raven]

Christianity on the whole is just the evolution of sun workship anyway. The rebirth/resurrection shizzle represents spring, as it did in pagan religions.

 

[Wij]

(all that jerusalem crap just because it was mentioned in the prophecy).

Bethlehem.

 

[Scouse]

where do people get this garbage from?

The virgin birth, the magi, baptism, 12 disciples, miracle working, the crucifixion, the resurrection, yadda yadda yadda, is depicted on the inside of Egyptian ruins very clearly in hieroglyphs.

It's the bible writ large, and much more stylishly, and way more than 2000 years BC.


The bible is just a regurgitation of a bullshit story used by the pharohs to subjugate their own people. And they stole it themselves and amended it themselves.

Humans are very very gullible monkeys.

 

[Killswitch]

But freedom of religion (and that religion to be a cunt) is another - as is, IMO, the freedom to run a BnB and not have blacks/gays/jews/whites/poles/aliens in your house.

Gah! Freedom of religious expression is not some kind of Get Out Of Jail Free card which allows you to discriminate against someone based on some real or perceived information about them that you do not like. This is like those bloody Yanks who can't understand the difference between "banning mandatory, government-enforced prayer in schools" and "OMG THEY BANNED TEH BABY JEEZUS!!!" which is a constant source of despair to me.

I quote Romans 13;

“Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgement on themselves."


EDIT: In the interests of full disclosure, Acts 5 seems to suggest that if the law of the land contradicts God's law, you should follow God's law. However you should still accept the authority of the Government over you and accept any and all punishment which results. So it's not as black and white as I was making out, although these people should at least just accept their fines and/or prison terms and keep their bloody traps shut!

So basically if it's against the law of the land to discriminate against people based on sexual orientation then even the bloody Bible says that Christians shouldn't do it! Although this passage also suggests that it is God's will that an unelected (and unelectable) coalition of useless, Eton-educated fuckwits should govern this Sceptred Isle. In my mind this casts serious doubt on whether he's really serious about this whole "God" thing at all and makes me think he might just be taking the piss. Nick Clegg? Seriously?

 

[Killswitch]

I always felt bad for bikers who weren't allowed in some pubs. Several in the Lake District used to have signs outside them saying "no leather jackets or biker helmets". Now those very same pubs are either out of business or gagging for bikers to come around.

Even if you happen to believe that being homosexual is a concious lifestyle choice, you'd have to admit that a decision to spend the next 50 years being violated in the most private of orifices by a lisping fellow by the name of Quentin is a slightly more involved decision than "whether to wear a jacket or not". It's also easier to take the jacket off, as a rule.

 

[Wij]

But as in most things in the Bible, try reconciling Romans 13 with other passages. You can't.

Anyway: http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/george-takei-responds-to-traditional-marriage-fans

 

[Killswitch]

But as in most things in the Bible, try reconciling Romans 13 with other passages. You can't.

Anyway: http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/george-takei-responds-to-traditional-marriage-fans

That was kind of my point, but thanks for really hammering it home (so to speak). In fact I found a contradictory passage (ooo err!) pretty easily and edited my original post to reflect that.

 

[rynnor]

Probably from the same place we get most stuff; well-researched conjecture. Most of the Abrahamic religions share a great deal of datapoints with earlier pagan religious stories. The exact path by which the Osiris resurrection mythology might (or might not) have become the Jesus resurrection mythology is unlikely to be found out now, but a lot of the Bible does read pretty much exactly how you'd expect a religious book written by people who's previous experience of religious writings were old pagan stories to read. This doesn't prove or disprove Jesus and the Bible one way or the other, but you have to admit it's a bit fishy. The resurrection, the flood, the creation of women from part of a man, the wise men and the star and even (I think) the creation of the Earth in 6 days are all outlined pretty clearly in texts which predate the widespread adoption of Christianity by (in some cases) hundreds of years.

All the desert dwellers were nicking each others ideas. Egyptians even came up with the whole concept of monotheism (the aaten) but the old priests managed to stamp it out.

The jewish messiah prophecy still survives I think.

The mis-translation is the origin of the dispute that split the catholics from the greek (and later russian) orthodox churches. All the original scriptures were written in Greek.

 

[rynnor]

Bethlehem.

Dats da one

They made up all that crap about having to go back to your place of birth to get joseph there to fit the messiah myth.

However the catholic version (son of god) makes no sense since he was meant to trace his ancestry to some ancient jew but if god did the dirty then jesus was clearly not his kid thus no descendant - a small but fundamental flaw.

 

[Aoami]

Probably from the same place we get most stuff; well-researched conjecture. Most of the Abrahamic religions share a great deal of datapoints with earlier pagan religious stories. The exact path by which the Osiris resurrection mythology might (or might not) have become the Jesus resurrection mythology is unlikely to be found out now, but a lot of the Bible does read pretty much exactly how you'd expect a religious book written by people who's previous experience of religious writings were old pagan stories to read. This doesn't prove or disprove Jesus and the Bible one way or the other, but you have to admit it's a bit fishy. The resurrection, the flood, the creation of women from part of a man, the wise men and the star and even (I think) the creation of the Earth in 6 days are all outlined pretty clearly in texts which predate the widespread adoption of Christianity by (in some cases) hundreds of years.

I understand that the bible, especially the torah part, is largely rehashed myth. However to suggest that Jesus didn't exist (his existence is widely accepted by scholars) because he was resurrected and so were Osiris, Balder etc seems strange to me.

 

[Scouse]

Gah! Freedom of religious expression is not some kind of Get Out Of Jail Free card which allows you to discriminate against someone based on some real or perceived information about them that you do not like

I agree. However, because it's late and I'm not tired I'd still like to poke at the grey areas

Would you say that people should be free to join a club and when they form that club they should be allowed to select their members?

Argument 1: "The religious one"
Say you start a comic club. You don't like some other kid because his voice annoys you so you don't let him in your club. But that kid *really* wants to be in your club so he goes to Parliament and gets them to pass a law that says if you have a club you have to let everyone in.

The club's no fun any more, is it?

Religious people shouldn't be forced to marry gay people in their churches. It stops their funny little hateful club being fun to them. Gay people shouldn't bother trying to ruin their dreary bigotry.

But religious people don't own the club called "marriage". They own the club called "idiot".


Argument 2: "The personal freedom one"
Say you own a house. You live in it but are short on cash and like the idea of renting your spare bedrooms to make a bit.

One day some bloke turns up at your door. He's 6'8" tall, smells like hasn't washed in 3 weeks, is filthy and has bogeys in his mustache. You tell a white lie and say you're full and turn him away but you're kinda flustered and it's pretty obvious that there's a room spare. So he goes to Parliament and gets them to pass a law saying that if you ever exchange money for rooms then you've given up the right to have who you want in your house.

It's not really your house any more, is it?


BnB's aren't travelodges. They're not the marriot hotel. They're someone's home. It's the club called "mine". If you don't like the rules in someone's house then you shouldn't go there. There's a travelodge/alternative BnB/bleeding campsite down the road...


Now, I know the law has taken the opposite view for argument 2 but for me that was a step too far against personal liberty. (Although I was pleased the complainants won tbfh)

I guess what I'm saying is - I don't think it's right to ban all discrimination in a heavy-handed fashion. These things will sort themselves out slowly, over generational timescales. The heavy-handed approach breeds resentment and people push back against it. We may as well live in a communist state and have to "OBEY" if we're going down that route...

 

[Killswitch]

I understand that the bible, especially the torah part, is largely rehashed myth. However to suggest that Jesus didn't exist because he was resurrected and so were Osiris, Balder etc seems strange to me.

If someone told me that a superhero really existed I would be skeptical. When asked to describe him they then told me that he could fly, drives a Batmobile and had adamantium claws, laser vision and a giant robot suit. This would be a big warning sign for me that I was being bullshitted. The same if you asked someone what happened to them last weekend and they reeled off the plot of the movie Road Trip.

No it's not impossible that the life of a real-life person could closely resemble a mash-up of a number of famous, well-known myths. I would say it's probably not the way to bet however.

 

[Killswitch]

I agree. However, because it's late and I'm not tired I'd still like to poke at the grey areas

<snip>

Actually laws about discrimination are pretty tightly defined. I can refuse service to anyone for any reason at any time. However if it can be proven that my refusal was based on discrimination as defined by the law, then my actions would be illegal. So your second example doesn't work. Now if it was a 6'8" smelly, unwashed, scary-looking *black* guy and following my refusal of service they claimed that my refusal was based on his race, I'd have to defend myself and his other attributes such as his exciting odour and fleas would absolutely be in play.

This is a different situation to turning away a gay couple explicitly because they are gay when discriminating against someone because they are gay is against the law.

The club thing is kind of the same. I don't have to hang out with anyone who I don't like OR allow them into my club. That's not discrimination (in a legal sense).

 

[Aoami]

By no means am I saying Jesus was a miracle worker who could come back from the dead. Still, I think it's tenuous at best to say that the entirety of the new testament is false because certain things that happen in it reflect other myths. As i said, it's widely accepted by religious and critical scholars that a man named Jesus, the 'prophet', who spread the word of God existed.

 

[Killswitch]

By no means am I saying Jesus was a miracle worker who could come back from the dead. Still, I think it's tenuous at best to say that the entirety of the new testament is false because certain things that happen in it reflect other myths. As i said, it's widely accepted by religious and critical scholars that a man named Jesus, the 'prophet', who spread the word of God existed.

But if he wasn't killed and resurrected to cleanse humanity of original sin (and if that original sin didn't exist, see my earlier post) then his existence is completely irrelevant to anything

I'm pretty sure Bob also existed, that doesn't mean I get to throw gay folk out of my aforementioned Neck Beard store.

 

[Scouse]

to suggest that Jesus didn't exist (his existence is widely accepted by scholars) because he was resurrected and so were Osiris, Balder etc seems strange to me.

1. If that was the only evidence then I might give you the benefit of the doubt*
2. Only religious scholars.

















*Nah. I wouldn't. The Horus/Osiris evidence is hugely compelling, comprehensive, incontrovertable on it's own. Add to that the reams of other reasons why it's complete bullshit and there's only one conclusion - it is. But that's what faith's all about - in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary people refuse to change they think...

 

[Aoami]

But if he wasn't killed and resurrected to cleanse humanity of original sin (and if that original sin didn't exist, see my earlier post) then his existence is completely irrelevant to anything

That I can't argue with, other than to say it was relevant before true organised government, which is why as I said in my much earlier posts the two can't co-exist particularly well in matters like this which is why situations like this get messy.