Gay Marriage views at Apolyton

[Elok]

What's apolygamy? Marriage to the monitor, or just screwing yourself over?

And Thorn, I was just fighting Che and the usual militantly-godless routine. I don't intend to gay-bash.

[Ben Kenobi]

It starts with Abraham

Fair enough. Still out on your dates though.

Which you only believe in because someone told you it happened.

So? There is plenty we believe is true because of eyewitness testimony.

Irrelevent. At the time the Christians seized control of the Empire,

Umm, how do pacifists seize control of an empire, Che?

It only became the majority because it outlawed all other religions.

It? Christianity did not outlaw other religions.

If they hadn't done that, there's a good possiblity we'd be Odinists or Wiccans or some other pagan religion.

What if Constantine did not adopt Christianity as his state religion? I don't presume to know what would happen. Christianity spread regardless of the actions taken by the government.

[Ben Kenobi]

This way, even a nonbeliever can decide to get his life in order on his own, then surrender his pride after he's learned how useless it really is.

Yes, but not in Hell. He can change his life while he is on Earth, but not after he dies.

[Elok]

If you insist. From an atheist's perspective it doesn't matter. They think they're gone after death anyway. I was talking about the present life.

[Ben Kenobi]

Looking at Heresy texts such as the Gospel of Thomas give a more accurate view of what Jesus said and wanted.

Thorn:

If you are willing to accept the gospel of Thomas, at face value, why can you reject the other Gospels outright?

Secondly, Jesus does say something about homosexuals. He affirms marriage between one man and one woman as the ideal.

Matthew: 19:4-6

"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh' So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

this entire section was an outline for a certain sect of Jewish Preists only,

No. The section is specifically addressed to the nation of Israel in general.

Leviticus 19:1-2

"The LORD said to Moses, "Speak to the entire assembly of Israel and say to them: 'Be holy because I, the LORD your God, am holy. "

It is only after the passage, Lev 21:1 that God sets aside specific rules for priests.


"The LORD said to Moses, "Speak to the priests, the sons of Aaron, and say to them: "


.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Quote:

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Not that long ago, Che. If you are referring to Christ, he's a carpenter, not a shepherd.

It starts with Abraham

A true believer in the words of the Bible would probably correct you
and say that it all started with Adam and Eve, 6007 years ago.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Fair enough. Still out on your dates though.

When did Sumer fall, 2500 B.C. Abrahm came wandering out not too soon afterwards. Maybe he's a 4,000 year year old shepard. Does it really matter?

So? There is plenty we believe is true because of eyewitness testimony.

Not without corraborating evidence we don't.

Umm, how do pacifists seize control of an empire, Che?

Apparently they did it violently. "With this sign, conquer" ring any bells?

It? Christianity did not outlaw other religions.

Christianity is not merely the set of beliefs but also the people who believe them. One in command of the Roman Empire, Christians forbade the worship of pagan gods in the temples, then in the goves, and then altogether. They killed those who didn't get with the new order.

What if Constantine did not adopt Christianity as his state religion?

I said good possibility, not that it would happen. Like Islam, Chistianity made the most converts when it became the state religion. If you have a material incentive to convert (death or taxes) people tend to convert faster than by just relying on the force of ideas alone.

Christianity spread regardless of the actions taken by the government.

Actually, it spread because of the actions of the government. Had the Romas ignored it, it probably would have been as ultimately successful as the other messianic religions floating around at the time. Where are they today? Maybe not, Christians had a major advantage in treating women as equals . . . 'till they stopped.

Then it spread because the government forced it on everyone, either when Constantine made it the religion of the empire or when Clovis made it the religion of the Franks, etc. Christianity spread fastest and furthest at the point of a sword. That's not a criticism, just history. I pretty much don't think there's a lot of point condemning 2,000 year old actions. (Ooh, yeah, Romani eres sunt! )

Anyway, when the Romans really wanted to crush a religion, it got crushed. Where are the Druids today?

[Ben Kenobi]

Does it really matter?

No, not to believe in what happened to him. The age of his prophecies has no bearings on his relevance for today.

Not without corraborating evidence we don't.

Jews admitted the empty tomb.

Apparently they did it violently. "With this sign, conquer" ring any bells?

No. Constantine changed of his own accord, after he insisted that he received a vision from God.

Chistianity made the most converts when it became the state religion.

No. Christianity makes the most converts when they are persecuted, by a proportion of the population. It is when they become integrated into the state, that they begin to decline.

If you have a material incentive to convert (death or taxes) people tend to convert faster than by just relying on the force of ideas alone.

And in what sense have people converted, if they do so for material benefits?

Had the Romans ignored it, it probably would have been as ultimately successful as the other messianic religions floating around at the time.

The claims of the resurrection, and of Christ as the Son of God, prove a direct rebuttal and challenge to the cult of the Emperor. So you cannot allow such a religion that refuses to recognise the sovereignty of the Emperor.

They had no choice but to challenge the religion, or to adopt the religion. What they could not win by defeating the believers, eventually occured through Constantine.

Then it spread because the government forced it on everyone, either when Constantine made it the religion of the empire or when Clovis made it the religion of the Franks, etc. Christianity spread fastest and furthest at the point of a sword.

No, it did not. Much of the Western Christianity owes their debt to monks in Ireland, and in places that remained isolated from the barbarians, after the collapse of Rome.

If one looks at the effects of adopting Christianity, on the Roman empire, you see the whole Western half collapse in a little more than a century and a half. It would not be until much later, that folks like Clovis and the authority of the church would be restored.

So again, without converts in beliefs, and through peaceful means, you cannot sustain Christianity. Christianity always does best when they are persecuted.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Jews admitted the empty tomb.

An empty tomb means nothing.

No. Constantine changed of his own accord, after he insisted that he received a vision from God.

Constantine was a Christian. Constantine used force to sieze control of the Roman empire. What part of, Christians seized control of the Roman empire vioently don't you understand?

And in what sense have people converted, if they do so for material benefits?

Well, at the very least, it means their children will grow up believing it.

The claims of the resurrection, and of Christ as the Son of God, prove a direct rebuttal and challenge to the cult of the Emperor.

Yet several religions did so. Judaism was the only one that was legally permited not to worship the emperor, but other messianic cults refused to believe in the divinty of the emperors.

No, it did not. Much of the Western Christianity owes their debt to monks in Ireland, and in places that remained isolated from the barbarians, after the collapse of Rome.

Ireland preserved the writings. That's about it. Nor does it have any bearing on the fact that Christianity spread at sword point.

If one looks at the effects of adopting Christianity, on the Roman empire, you see the whole Western half collapse in a little more than a century and a half.

The Eastern half was Christian too, and it lasted another thousand years. Furthermore, many of the Germans who conqquered the western empire were Christian. The Goths and Vandals were both Christian.

It would not be until much later, that folks like Clovis and the authority of the church would be restored.

And when Clovis converted, he declared the whole Kingdom of the Franks Christian too. If you didn't convert, you got killed. Typically, missionaries tried to convert leaders, who could then order the whole tribe/nation to convert. Thus whole groups converted at sword point, beause what the King said goes. Disobey the king and die.

So again, without converts in beliefs, and through peaceful means, you cannot sustain Christianity. Christianity always does best when they are persecuted.

Wrong, it always does best when persecuting. Rome, converted by force. France, England, Germany, the Slavs, converted by force. The Americas, converted by force. Africa, converted by force. The Vikings, converted by force. With few exceptions, the mass of Christian areas find their origins in being forced to convert. That's history.

And it's done pertty well. Europe has been Christian for over a thousand years, parts of it for seventeen hundred years. It doesn't seem to have been hurt much for being a state religion.

Once you take that force away, however, it tends to diminish. (North America being an exception). The Turks even had to outlaw converting from Christian to Muslim because they relied on Christians for taxes and slaves.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


80% is the percentage of Christians. You people aren't the only religious people in America, you know. 95% of Americans are religious. Anyway, 100% of Americans have a psychological disorder or some kind.It's just that 95% of them believe in invisible friends in addition to any other problems they might have.

You believe in something which can't be seen, touched, felt, measured, which exists outside time and space, and yet someone how influences reality, all cause someone told you it exists. Yeah, I call that a neurosis.

How can someone who believes in communism say this?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
How can someone who believes in communism say this?

Who said I had to be consistent!

Seriously, because we can analyze history and see what went wrong and why. There's nothing inherently wrong with the idea that people can run their world collectively.

[Ben Kenobi]

An empty tomb means nothing.

Then why were the Jews so agitated about the tomb?

Constantine was a Christian. Constantine used force to sieze control of the Roman empire. What part of, Christians seized control of the Roman empire vioently don't you understand?

Constantine was Emperor before he converted to Christianity. Ergo, Christianity has nothing to do with his control over the Empire.

Well, at the very least, it means their children will grow up believing it.

If this were the case, then why are we not all Christians? Just because one's parents believe does not ensure that one will personally believe.

Yet several religions did so. Judaism was the only one that was legally permited not to worship the emperor, but other messianic cults refused to believe in the divinty of the emperors.

Yes, but at what cost? The Jews had to swear allegiance to Rome. The Christians refused to do so.

Ireland preserved the writings. That's about it. Nor does it have any bearing on the fact that Christianity spread at sword point.

They did quite a bit more than just preserve the writings. All of the Scandanavians who became Christians, had ties that can be traced back to those Irish. Same for most of England. By the time of Bede, they had enough of a theology, as to compete with the envoys from Rome, who shared their faith.

The Eastern half was Christian too, and it lasted another thousand years. Furthermore, many of the Germans who conqquered the western empire were Christian. The Goths and Vandals were both Christian.

But the Goths and Vandals all conquered Christian areas. Why is it that the conquerers would convert to Christianity if Christianity was spread by the sword?

And when Clovis converted, he declared the whole Kingdom of the Franks Christian too. If you didn't convert, you got killed. Typically, missionaries tried to convert leaders, who could then order the whole tribe/nation to convert. Thus whole groups converted at sword point, beause what the King said goes. Disobey the king and die.

But you still must grapple with the fact of the missionaries. They are the only way a tribe will ever be converted, not through the sword.

[quote]
Wrong, it always does best when persecuting. Rome, converted by force. France, England, Germany, the Slavs, converted by force. The Americas, converted by force. Africa, converted by force.

The Vikings, converted by force.

The Vikings kicked arse at Lindisfarne. They were not converted by force, but rather, through contact with Christians.

Rome collapsed, and converted the conquering barbarian tribes, again through contact with Christians.

France, converted as a result of contact between the Christian parts of Europe, and Clovis and his sons. Without Clovis, you do not have a Christian France.

England, converted to Catholicism by Irish monks. Read your history. They were Christian by the time of Bede.

Germany, don't know. Have to check.

The Slavs, converted through the contact between Constantinople, and the Slavs.

The Americas, converted by force.

Deserves another topic.

1. Canada. Converted not by force, but settled by Europeans. Europeans spread Christianity through contact with the natives, and signed treaties for the land.

2. USA. They did not spread Christianity through force, but again, settled the coast, and through Manifest Destiny spread across the west. They left very few natives to convert through Christianity.

3. Central America. In the Caribbean, they had import labour to replace the declining population.

4. Mexico. Thought Cortez was Quetzalcoatl. Enabled him to take over the entire country. Converted many because they believed him to have the true religion.

Africa, converted by force.

If that were so, why is it Egypt, controlled by Britain, and Libya by Italy, Algeria by France, and Morocco by Spain, why are they all Muslim countries, and not Christian?

And it's done pertty well. Europe has been Christian for over a thousand years, parts of it for seventeen hundred years. It doesn't seem to have been hurt much for being a state religion.

Why is it that Americans are considered to be much more devout than the Europeans? Establishment of religion hurts the religion and the state.

Once you take that force away, however, it tends to diminish. (North America being an exception).

Pretty big exception.

The Turks even had to outlaw converting from Christian to Muslim because they relied on Christians for taxes and slaves.

Yet they also have to outlaw converting from Islam to Christianity. If the former were not the case, they would not need the latter.

[Chemical Ollie]

What are gays doing at a site about computer gaming anyway? Here's where you belong:


http://www.literotica.com:81/forum/f...?s=&forumid=29

[Ned]

Originally posted by bipolarbear
I've said it before and I'll say it again, there is nothing sacred about the drive thru wedding ministered by Elvisthat only ends in divorce the next day. People are far too ignorant to put two and two together. There were newstories about high divorce rates, and how that was tearing down the fmaily which "one of the most important institutions in America!". But now marriage is this great sacred bond, and it always lasts forever, and is never cheapened or violated by black widows or golddiggers, or anything like that!

And, bipolar bear, as a good Communist, I would presume that you are against institution of marriage per se regardless of whether or not it is between a man and woman or between a couple of the same-sex.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Quote:

Originally posted by St Leo Quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Yes. Marriage originates in the enslavement of women in order to ensure that men can ensure their offsrping really are theirs. At some point, as with mst things, religion clouded up the real, practical origins of the institution, and made it dogma. Both marriage and organized religion originated about the same time, the neolithic revolution. I am not sure if your premise holds water when looked at from a cross-cultural or a cross-species perspective, but one would think that you are overestimating the knowledge available in the Neolithic. Such an enslavement would be rooted in short-term sex, not long-term reproduction.

From a cross-species perspective it seem to bolster my case. Most mammals limit their breeding to an alpha male, female, or both. There are exceptions with solitary mamals, like bears and such as well as animals like dolphins and bonbos who will boink anything that moves practically.

Cross-culturally it's harder for me to say, as I haven't studied all of them. However, as far as arising in the neolithic, that's when anthropologists are pretty sure it arose. That's the point at which animal husbandry allows men to realize that men have something to do with reproduction (as opposed to sex just being fun). It is also when wealth begins to accumulate and fathers want to be able to pass the wealth on to their children. In order to do so, they needed to know who their children were, hence the enslavement of women.

At least that's the current theory. Could be wrong.

As always, Che, you got it backwards. Ask any married man who the slave is.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Firelad
There are problems with polygamy. Legal and otherwise. I like the idea of civil union for 2, marriage (considered relative) for as many as you like. Besides, solution = open marriage.
Of course, pooftie rights are taken for granted in this post.

What is your objection, firelad, to two homosexual cousins marrying, or for that matter, two siblings?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST


Hm,
I always thought about it as being some kind of Ritual for the couple to receive Blessings from God (or the God responsible for Fertility) to give them lots of healthy offspring.

But I agree, from the standpoint of ethology it makes more sense to assume that marriage evolved as a means to ensure that all offspring are from the same male.
After all it is one of the most important factors in the behavior of most male animals to ensure, that as much offspring as possible carry their genes.

Proteus, you seem to have fallen for the spells and propaganda of our resident communist chairman.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MrFun



No -- just you.

I hope you say that in jest?

[Thorn]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
What are gays doing at a site about computer gaming anyway? Here's where you belong:


http://www.literotica.com:81/forum/f...?s=&forumid=29

I like, thanks.

[Ned]

Originally posted by pchang
Marriage is religious and should stay that way. Laws should be for civil unions and should treat everyone the same. The two should not be mixed.

Separate is not equal.

Marriage long precedes religion.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MrFun


Bennie refuses to respect gays, and you refuse to respect non-bigoted religious people -- it's hard for me to pick which one is more evil.

Bennie respects gays, just not gay marriage. There is a difference that you choose to ignore.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


So to respect someone, I must agree with everything they do? That's a pretty narrow definition. By that definition, I don't agree with everything Catholics do, does that mean I do not respect my girlfriend, who is a Catholic?

I have never heard you say anything about Jesus that I found to be in conflict with Catholic dogma.

So there.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned


As always, Che, you got it backwards. Ask any married man who the slave is.

I wasn't aware that we were lving under the same conditions as ten thousand years ago. Interesting.

[Imran Siddiqui]

We are in Ned's family .

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Quote:

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Not that long ago, Che. If you are referring to Christ, he's a carpenter, not a shepherd.

It starts with Abraham

Quote:

No, because of the resurrection.

Which you only believe in because someone told you it happened.

Quote:

After kicking the *** out of believers for 3 centuries?

Irrelevent. At the time the Christians seized control of the Empire, it was still a minority religion. It only became the majority because it outlawed all other religions. If they hadn't done that, there's a good possiblity we'd be Odinists or Wiccans or some other pagan religion.

Che, your post is internally inconsistent. You state that the outlawing of every other religion but Catholicism led to no one believing in religions other than the Catholic religion. And yet the same time you dismiss the 300 years of persecution of Christianity as being irrelevant.

[Agathon]

Ned's right on the slave thing Che. Well sometimes.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Then why were the Jews so agitated about the tomb?

#1, who says they were? #2, grave robbing is a serious taboo in most cultures.

Constantine was Emperor before he converted to Christianity. Ergo, Christianity has nothing to do with his control over the Empire.

Constatine was not full emperor until ater he converted. He was only co-emperor.

If this were the case, then why are we not all Christians? Just because one's parents believe does not ensure that one will personally believe.

It does in a society where conformity is enforced.

Yes, but at what cost? The Jews had to swear allegiance to Rome. The Christians refused to do so.

Then they were bad Christians. They failed to follow a direct order from Christ. "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's."

[q]They did quite a bit more than just preserve the writings.[q/]

All of which is still irrelevent to the discussion. By the way, most fish have scales. I don't see why you can't understand that.

But the Goths and Vandals all conquered Christian areas. Why is it that the conquerers would convert to Christianity if Christianity was spread by the sword?

As I mentioned, the Goths and Vandals were already Christian when they particiapted in the conquestion of the Western Empire. The Vandals were Christian when the sacked Rome.

The pagan conquerors didn't convert immediately, but only after hundreds of years. But when their kings converted, everyone in their kingdoms was forced to convert to Christianity or be executed. Thus, Christianity was spread by the sword in those kingdoms where the King converted.

But you still must grapple with the fact of the missionaries. They are the only way a tribe will ever be converted, not through the sword.

I don't have to grapple with it at all. Missionary goes to the chief and converts him. Then the chiefs orders all his people to convert or die. The tribe is thus converted by the sword.

The Vikings kicked arse at Lindisfarne. They were not converted by force, but rather, through contact with Christians.

The Vikings were converted by order of their king, just like every other pagan nation that converted.

Rome collapsed, and converted the conquering barbarian tribes, again through contact with Christians.

Nope.

France, converted as a result of contact between the Christian parts of Europe, and Clovis and his sons. Without Clovis, you do not have a Christian France.

Exactly my point! Yet you don't understand.

England, converted to Catholicism by Irish monks. Read your history. They were Christian by the time of Bede.

And this contradicts the fact that the English kings ordered their people to convert or die how?

Germany, don't know. Have to check.

etc.

The Slavs, converted through the contact between Constantinople, and the Slavs.

etc.

Deserves another topic.

etc.

1. Canada. Converted not by force, but settled by Europeans. Europeans spread Christianity through contact with the natives, and signed treaties for the land.

Canada was conquered by the English. That's force.

2. USA. They did not spread Christianity through force, but again, settled the coast, and through Manifest Destiny spread across the west. They left very few natives to convert through Christianity.

That's spreading the religion by force.

3. Central America. In the Caribbean, they had import labour to replace the declining population.

The natives were forced to convert or die.

4. Mexico. Thought Cortez was Quetzalcoatl. Enabled him to take over the entire country. Converted many because they believed him to have the true religion.

The being murdered if they didn't convert didn't hurt his cause.

If that were so, why is it Egypt, controlled by Britain, and Libya by Italy, Algeria by France, and Morocco by Spain, why are they all Muslim countries, and not Christian?

That's a good question. Bet it wasn't for lack of trying, however.

Why is it that Americans are considered to be much more devout than the Europeans? Establishment of religion hurts the religion and the state.

The decline of religion occured, for the most part, after state religions were no longer enforced. Those countries that still enforced their state religions remained religious longer.

Pretty big exception.

We're weird.

Yet they also have to outlaw converting from Islam to Christianity. If the former were not the case, they would not need the latter.

Don't confuse today with five hundred years ago.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
And yet the same time you dismiss the 300 years of persecution of Christianity as being irrelevant.

Because the discussion is whether or not Christianity spread faster by the sword or by the pen. Thus, the persecution of the Christians by the Empire is not relevent, unless you are trying to argue, which Ben wasn't, that it might have spread faster had it not been supressed. Ben actually argues the opposite, that is spread fastest when oppressed, which is contrary to the historical record.

[CharlesBHoff]

Christian in Europe was spead by the sword especial the one who believe that God is three persons. That why they accue Islam of speading by the swors as that how Christian spead. From the beginning it was forbin to use force to convert people to Islam. It Islam have use force there wouldnot be million's of christian in the middle east left.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Because the discussion is whether or not Christianity spread faster by the sword or by the pen. Thus, the persecution of the Christians by the Empire is not relevent, unless you are trying to argue, which Ben wasn't, that it might have spread faster had it not been supressed. Ben actually argues the opposite, that is spread fastest when oppressed, which is contrary to the historical record.

No, the point I was making was that outlawing a religion, even at the pain of death, does not result in its extinction.