Gay Marriage views at Apolyton

[Ben Kenobi]

Okay.

Here's where I get to talk about those beloved Irish, the English, and the Scandanavians.

Che:

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

Ordered? My sources says that they were inspired, and not forced.

http://www.britannia.com/church/bond3.html

The first new wave of Christianity since the conversions of Roman British citizens in the fourth century began with the founding of a new Celtic monastery on the island of Iona, just off the western coast of Scotland. Established in 563 by Saint Columba, a Celtic monk, Iona proved to be pivotal in christianizing Scotland and northern England. Columba himself was almost single-handedly responsible for the conversion of the Picts, with nine successive abbots of his clan converting virtually all of Scotland and nearly two-thirds of England. Continental missionary work also sprang from Columba's monastery in Iona: Saint Columbanus, a young monk, took twelve disciple monks to northern Italy and founded a monastery in Bobbio. As the Irish monks converted the north, a second wave of missionary work, Roman in nature, commenced in the south in 597.

Gregory the Great, the highly influential pope of 590-604, dispatched Augustine (later to gain sainthood) to England with the express purpose of converting the Saxon kings of south England. Augustine landed in Thanet, immediately targeting the Kentish king, Ethelbert, whose wife was a Frankish Christian. Ethelbert's baptism inspired the conversion of a sizable majority of subjects: the trend of subjects following a king's conversion became a common thread of the spread of Christianity in southern England

[Ben Kenobi]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient...igion_01.shtml

The Viking Age was a period of considerable religious change in Scandinavia. Part of the popular image of the Vikings is that they were all pagans, with a hatred of the Christian Church, but this view is very misleading. It is true that almost the entire population of Scandinavia was pagan at the beginning of the Viking Age, but the Vikings had many gods, and it was no problem for them to accept the Christian god alongside their own. Most scholars today believe that Viking attacks on Christian churches had nothing to do with religion, but more to do with the fact that monasteries were typically both wealthy and poorly defended, making them an easy target for plunder.

The Vikings came into contact with Christianity through their raids, and when they settled in lands with a Christian population, they adopted Christianity quite quickly. This was true in Normandy, Ireland, and throughout the British Isles. Although contemporary accounts say little about this, we can see it in the archaeological evidence. Pagans buried their dead with grave goods, but Christians normally didn't, and this makes it relatively easy to spot the change in religion.

As well as conversion abroad, the Viking Age also saw a gradual conversion in Scandinavia itself, as Anglo-Saxon and German missionaries arrived to convert the pagans. By the mid-11th century, Christianity was well established in Denmark and most of Norway. Although there was a temporary conversion in Sweden in the early 11th century, it wasn't until the mid-12th century that Christianity became established there. As part of the process of conversion the Christians took over traditional pagan sites. A good example of this can be seen at Gamle Uppsala in Sweden, where the remains of an early church stand alongside a series of huge pagan burial mounds.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm not going to go into the Slavs, and such, I think you can see a pattern here.

Christianity spreads with missionaries, not by the sword.

As for Canada, you have the habitents, who most certainly were Christian, who were taken over by the British.

So you don't really have a forced conversion happening.

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.

That confirms my point about persecution. When the church is persecuted, the members adhere to their faith. When the church becomes wholly integrated into the state, people fall away when the props are kicked out. That is what we are seeing in Europe right now. The props are being kicked out, and people are falling away.

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I'm not going to go into the Slavs, and such, I think you can see a pattern here.

Christianity spreads with missionaries, not by the sword.

As for Canada, you have the habitents, who most certainly were Christian, who were taken over by the British.

So you don't really have a forced conversion happening.





That confirms my point about persecution. When the church is persecuted, the members adhere to their faith. When the church becomes wholly integrated into the state, people fall away when the props are kicked out. That is what we are seeing in Europe right now. The props are being kicked out, and people are falling away.

This omly apply to England and the viking you are talking about. What about the Frank who force Roman Christian on the Armerin Goth's. Or what Spain did in 1492.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sava
you see... this is the problem... people are going to accept this movie as FACT... when it is a fictional depiction of mythical religious scripture.

Sava, agreed there is some "ficition" in the movie. But it adheres very closely to the story of the Passion as I learned it growing up Catholic.

The scripture is not mythical.

One can debate whether there is proof that these events occurred. One cannot state with factual assurance that they did not occur.

There is no doubt that Christians were tortured and executed, most times horribly, by the Romans for nearly 300 years. Are you a "holocaust denier" as well?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sava
Death to Bigotry... religion is fine

Sava, your hatred of Christianity is venomous.

[Ben Kenobi]

What about the Frank who force Roman Christian on the Armerin Goth's.

I think I dealt with the first point earlier in the thread.

Or what Spain did in 1492.

Were they trying to spread Christianity?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ned
The scripture is not mythical.

"Mythical" does not denote something being false, merely that it involves the supernatural and is enshrined in popular tradition. The events that supposedly occured in the gospels certainly fit this bill.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned

The scripture is not mythical.

One can debate whether there is proof that these events occurred. One cannot state with factual assurance that they did not occur.

So, you think the Mahabharata and the Ramayana are documentary evidence of the truth of Hinduism?

How about the Qu'ran, or the Iliad, or the Popol Vuh, or the Egyptian Book of the Dead?

[St Leo]

Perhaps "legend" would be a better word than "myth".

[Ned]

Originally posted by molly bloom


So, you think the Mahabharata and the Ramayana are documentary evidence of the truth of Hinduism?

How about the Qu'ran, or the Iliad, or the Popol Vuh, or the Egyptian Book of the Dead?

Molly, you know I stated the converse. The existence of the scriptures does not prove existence of the events. But that does not mean that these events did NOT occur, which clearly was the import if not the outright assertion of Sava.

As to the Qu'ran, etc., I read all these books some time ago with the assumption that what they were describing was at least based on historical events. The finding of the city of Troy someone verifies that the Illiad was based on an historical event.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


"Mythical" does not denote something being false, merely that it involves the supernatural and is enshrined in popular tradition. The events that supposedly occured in the gospels certainly fit this bill.

Generally, if something is denoted as 'a myth' or 'mythical' people assume you mean it to be false.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Big Crunch
Generally, if something is denoted as 'a myth' or 'mythical' people assume you mean it to be false.

Maybe I'm too ensconced in historical scholarship, but that has never been my impression of the use of the word. I know that is one definition of it, but the primary meaning (to me at least) has been as I stated above.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


I try because others bothered to do so with me. I had an open mind, and others will have the same, even if you do not.

I used to be on your side of the issue, but unfortunately I opened mind. Look what has become of me. Close your mind before they get you too!

[Ned]

Ben, on the issue of homosexuality being voluntary, how do you account for these "twins" studies that show up to 100% concordance between identical twins, and very little concordance between fraternal twins.

http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/timt/p...s/studies.html

STUDY	DATE 	RANGE	MALE MZ TWINS 	MALE DZ TWINS	SAMPLE SOURCE	
Kallmann	1952 	>20	37/37 (100%) 	3*/26 (12%)	Psychiatric, correctional and charitable agencies, plus direct contacts 	
Heston & Shields	1968	20-52 	3/7 (43%)	1/7 (14%) 	Hospital Twin Register 	
Bailey & Pillard	1991	19-65 	29/56 (52%)	12/54 (22%) 	Homophile publications

[Spiffor]

That confirms my point about persecution. When the church is persecuted, the members adhere to their faith. When the church becomes wholly integrated into the state, people fall away when the props are kicked out. That is what we are seeing in Europe right now. The props are being kicked out, and people are falling away.

Yeah right. There were many more Christians among the population back when Christians were fed to the lions, in comparison with when Christianty was enforced.
And we all know Christianty is much more persecuted in the US than in Europe, which is the obvious reason why so many people are flocking to it

[Ned]

Spiffor, what do you think the reaction to The Passion will be in Europe where religion is largely passe?

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Ned
Ben, on the issue of homosexuality being voluntary, how do you account for these "twins" studies that show up to 100% concordance between identical twins, and very little concordance between fraternal twins.

Only the first study showed 100% concordance for monozygotic twins. The other two did not. Due to the limited numbers and some other problems, I wouldnt draw too many hard conclusions from the data. All three do suggest that there is a difference in concordance between MZ and DZ twins i.e. there is a genetic component to homosexuality.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ned
Spiffor, what do you think the reaction to The Passion will be in Europe where religion is largely passe?

No idea. Last time I heard about it, we didn't even know if the movie would ever air in France. One sure thing: we heard about it, but it certainly isn't a commotion.

[Proteus_MST]

In Germany it gets on April 8. into the Theatres.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
But the Christians, as this account confirms, Constantine says he recieved a revelation, and trusted the revelation to help him gain control of the empire. His conversion was not forced, but rather through a remarkable revelation.

Are you really that stupid!?! Where did I say Constintantine was forced? Rather I said when he seized control, HE FORCED the Roman Empire to convert, on pain of death. I was wrong about Constantine, however. It was a later emperor who forced the Roman Empire to convert or die.

[Imran Siddiqui]

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

Interesting, historical accounts suggest that if Constantine had not converted and the Edict of Milan not put in place when it had, the Christians would have been exterminated within 10 years. It was that close.

But yes, it was Theodosius who wanted everyone to convert. Constantine was not going to upset the nobles.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by MrFun
So not only do you refuse to respect religious people, but your bigoted against them as well?

That's actually the same thing. Bigotry implies an abense of respect. How can I possibily respect someone who believes in something so utterly foolish as a belief in something completely intangible, which they only believe in because they were convinced as to its existence by someone else.

Let me ask you this. If someone went around proclaiming they'd been visited by UFOs, would you respect them? No, because it's utterly unbelieveable. Microwaves aren't beaming into your head to control you, there is no pink unicorn behind the moon, there is no god, and this rock doesn't keep away tigers.

I am not required to respect someone just because they have a deeply held belief. If I were, I'd have to respect racists, homophobes, sexists, fascists, etc. I'd have to respect Flat Earthers, and people who believe who believe in magic, vampires, and UFOs. I don't, and I won't.

Why should I?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I'm not going to go into the Slavs, and such, I think you can see a pattern here.

Christianity spreads with missionaries, not by the sword.

I can see a pattern of you ignoring history. Missionaries convert the leaders. Leasders convert the people. Those who refuse, die. Thus did Christiainity spread.

Obviously contact took place. You can't convert to a religion you've never heard of. D'uh! So Christian missionaries spread the word. Even your own posts show that until the leader convereted, most people held to the old ways. While your sources conveniently ignore the forced converstions following the converion of the leaders, however.

As for your marriage being or not being valid. There was a time when men could do just that, grab a woman and claim her as his wife. It happens still today in some backwards parts of the world, like China (where they buy SE Asian women for wives), in rural India and Yemen, qwhere kidnapped women are forced to marry, etc. Unless you can be rescued from such a situation, your agreement is not required. You live in a society that doesn't allow such things as forced marriage and forced convertion.

As for whether or not converting at sword point makes a difference, maybe not to your beliefs. But people can be forced to believe things. Free will isn't as free as people like to think, and social pressure is very powerful in forcing people to conform.

[Elok]

I think what MrFun meant was, "not only are you rude to religious people, you won't even hear them out?"

As to why you should respect us, communism is pretty stupid in my book, but I've never tried to shoot you down with sniping sideways comments, have I? Even if you have no respect, you could at least make an initial attempt to have manners.

[Rogan Josh]

I am against gay marriage. Mainly because there is no such thing. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, so two gay men can never be married.

Saying that is discrimination is like saying it is discrimination that two gay men can't have hetrosexual sex with each other....

Why don't you homosexual gentlemen go find your own word for your "unions" and leave ours alone.

[Whaleboy]

Can't see a reason why not!!! Free the love!

[Whaleboy]

I am against gay marriage. Mainly because there is no such thing. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, so two gay men can never be married.

You are defining marriage! The best description if you want to get historical is slavery of a woman to a man. Therefore I abandon that and say that marriage is what it is to the beholders, in other words, the would-be weds. As far as the state is concerned therefore, it is nothing more than a contract, and that surely comes under freedom of association. I can find no logical barrier to gay marriage, nor would I want to.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Why don't you butt****ers go find your own word for your "unions" and leave ours alone.

Nice. Not only do we get the "You can't be in our club" argument, we get a nasty slur thrown in there as well. Is this an example of your Christian ethic?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
I am against gay marriage. Mainly because there is no such thing. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, so two gay men can never be married.

Saying that is discrimination is like saying it is discrimination that two gay men can't have hetrosexual sex with each other....

Why don't you butt****ers go find your own word for your "unions" and leave ours alone.

Where do I even begin in refuting this type of bigoted statement?