Really

Wyoming, MI

#145 Mar 14, 2013
Mr Wiggley wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you saying hitler said never to believe what he said?? Are you nuts? You've never read mien kampf...and your comment proves it. He was most certainly a christian.
You are a typical christian...those with whom you disagree, even though they profess to be christian, are all Atheists even though you can not, as in this case, provide one quote from hitler that he was an Atheist. That's why there are so many divisions amoungst the christian church...and you are a contributer.
With regards to genisis, if all you can do is answer a question with a question, I readily acknowledge your concession that my implications are correct...your god-being is the worst mass murderer of all time.
Hitler was actually a Jew and hated his Jewish father. Hitler may have said he was a Christian, but again, if one is to blame the Christians for what Hitler did, then explain his putting to death Christians, Catholics, Jews, homosexuals, mentally handicapped, etc. It's just "convenient" to think he was a Christian because then no one has to admit that he was just a psychotic bastard who hated anyone who didn't agree with what he said.
pipedream

West Bloomfield, MI

#146 Mar 14, 2013
Really wrote:
<quoted text>Hitler was actually a Jew and hated his Jewish father. Hitler may have said he was a Christian, but again, if one is to blame the Christians for what Hitler did, then explain his putting to death Christians, Catholics, Jews, homosexuals, mentally handicapped, etc. It's just "convenient" to think he was a Christian because then no one has to admit that he was just a psychotic bastard who hated anyone who didn't agree with what he said.
Sources and citations please. Credible ones, not ones you've made up or made yourself believe.

Since: Mar 09

Grandville, MI

#147 Mar 14, 2013
pipedream wrote:
<quoted text>
Sources and citations please. Credible ones, not ones you've made up or made yourself believe.
LOL!!!!
pipedream

West Bloomfield, MI

#148 Mar 14, 2013
Gville Jim wrote:
<quoted text>LOL!!!!
What's so funny JimBob?

Really has a difficult time supporting statements made.

I'm trying to make this discussion more fact and reality based.

Provide citations, sources and references or take the bull shit somewhere else.

Since: Mar 09

Grandville, MI

#149 Mar 14, 2013
pipedream wrote:
<quoted text>
Sources and citations please. Credible ones, not ones you've made up or made yourself believe.
Where are yours?
pipedream

West Bloomfield, MI

#150 Mar 14, 2013
I didn't declare that Hitler is Jewish born of Jewish parents. I didn't say either that Hitler may have declared he was Christian. Really did. I'm simply asking Really provide sources and citations for such a claim.

Since: Mar 09

Grandville, MI

#151 Mar 14, 2013
pipedream wrote:
I didn't declare that Hitler is Jewish born of Jewish parents. I didn't say either that Hitler may have declared he was Christian. Really did. I'm simply asking Really provide sources and citations for such a claim.
Then, provide some proof that they are wrong.
Thank you in advance, I look forward to it.
pipedream

West Bloomfield, MI

#152 Mar 14, 2013
Gville Jim wrote:
<quoted text>Then, provide some proof that they are wrong.
Thank you in advance, I look forward to it.
It doesn't work like that here on Topix JimBob. You, a man of 10,000 + posts, of all people should know that.
vox veritatis

Grand Rapids, MI

#153 Mar 14, 2013
Really wrote:
he was just a psychotic bastard who hated anyone who didn't agree with what he said.
Sounds like a lot of progressives.
Actually, genome studies have suggested Hitler had both Jewish and African genes in his pool.
http://www.history.com/news/study-suggests-ad...

Since: Mar 09

Grandville, MI

#155 Mar 14, 2013
pipedream wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesn't work like that here on Topix JimBob. You, a man of 10,000 + posts, of all people should know that.
Why doesnt it work that way?
And as far as number of post's goes, I wonder how many you might have if you were not an unregistered troll?
Please explain to us exactly "how it works on topix"
You are the one disputing someone elses claim. Why dont you provide some facts to back up your comment, saying that they are wrong?
Your opinions are not facts.
Have a nice day!

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

#156 Mar 15, 2013
Thor wrote:
<quoted text>
Separate-but-equal is not equal.
<quoted text>
Marriage existed before the greek religion/mythology.
Try again.
Civil unions are not seperate but equal. As a point of fact they could be more "equal" than marriage if the law made it that way. That is the point; that from a legal rights perspective, civil unions can be made exactly the same as the legal rights in a marriage. A hetrosexual couple could also use them if they weren't religious and did not want to get "married."

Co-habitation existed long before marriage but marriage involves a legal and/or religious agreement, and religion existed long before governments. By definition, living together isn't marriage. You are confusing the two.

Try again.

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

#157 Mar 15, 2013
pipedream wrote:
<quoted text>
Sources and citations please. Credible ones, not ones you've made up or made yourself believe.
He most likely was not, but this does a decent job of explaining where the idea came from.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/H...
SeenItBefore

Three Rivers, MI

#158 Mar 15, 2013
FLBeaver wrote:
<quoted text>
Civil unions are not seperate but equal. As a point of fact they could be more "equal" than marriage if the law made it that way. That is the point; that from a legal rights perspective, civil unions can be made exactly the same as the legal rights in a marriage. A hetrosexual couple could also use them if they weren't religious and did not want to get "married."
Co-habitation existed long before marriage but marriage involves a legal and/or religious agreement, and religion existed long before governments. By definition, living together isn't marriage. You are confusing the two.
Try again.
Being that all that is true? why the irritation with gay marriages? From a religious standpoint? There is NO Biblical requirement for a man and woman to marry. ALL references to marriage in the Bible relates to Jewish law. NOT Biblical "law". You may want to check out what constitutes a "Biblical marriage".

A "Biblical" marriage is not recognized by the state for legal rights purposes. Only marriages under state laws are. Even ministers, priests, pastors, etc. have to be licensed by the state for marriages to be considered legal. There is such a thing as legal marital rights.

And don't even bother getting into common law marriages. More than one legal battle has ensued for rights in common law marriages.

Legal marriage is all about rights of ownership of the other person and their possessions. If you don't think so then explain the responsibilities of who owns the body of a person who dies.

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

#159 Mar 15, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
Being that all that is true? why the irritation with gay marriages? From a religious standpoint? There is NO Biblical requirement for a man and woman to marry. ALL references to marriage in the Bible relates to Jewish law. NOT Biblical "law". You may want to check out what constitutes a "Biblical marriage".
A "Biblical" marriage is not recognized by the state for legal rights purposes. Only marriages under state laws are. Even ministers, priests, pastors, etc. have to be licensed by the state for marriages to be considered legal. There is such a thing as legal marital rights.
And don't even bother getting into common law marriages. More than one legal battle has ensued for rights in common law marriages.
Legal marriage is all about rights of ownership of the other person and their possessions. If you don't think so then explain the responsibilities of who owns the body of a person who dies.
I was about to go down the rabbit trail you guided me towards but I decided to resist.

Regarding what “Biblical Marriage” is, here are two sources you may want to check out. Not that you will agree but it is easier than copying the whole thing. There are millions of sources that give decent definitions, these just happened to be two that I picked.
http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/e...
http://christianity.about.com/od/faqhelpdesk/...

To address your question directly, it’s pretty simple. From a religious viewpoint, homosexuality is morally wrong, just as say bestiality is wrong. The goal of the homosexual community has nothing to do with “equal rights under the law.” It is to gain moral acceptance of a behavior. And at that point the door has been opened wide. If it is ok for Jim and Jack to marry, why not Jim, Sue and Ann? Why not Miss. Sally and Puffy her Persian cat? Why not Frank and his 8 year old niece?

Logically you can’t open marriage to one group and not others. So marriage is either only between a man and woman or it is open to any and all constructs. There is no middle ground.

As I said, if it was truly just about equal rights, this would have ended 20+ years ago with adjustments to the civil union laws. All those things you mentioned and more ("Legal marriage is all about rights of ownership of the other person and their possessions. If you don't think so then explain the responsibilities of who owns the body of a person who dies")are all easily settled under civil law.
SeenItBefore

Three Rivers, MI

#160 Mar 15, 2013
FLBeaver wrote:
<quoted text>
I was about to go down the rabbit trail you guided me towards but I decided to resist.
Regarding what “Biblical Marriage” is, here are two sources you may want to check out. Not that you will agree but it is easier than copying the whole thing. There are millions of sources that give decent definitions, these just happened to be two that I picked.
http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/e...
http://christianity.about.com/od/faqhelpdesk/...
To address your question directly, it’s pretty simple. From a religious viewpoint, homosexuality is morally wrong, just as say bestiality is wrong. The goal of the homosexual community has nothing to do with “equal rights under the law.” It is to gain moral acceptance of a behavior. And at that point the door has been opened wide. If it is ok for Jim and Jack to marry, why not Jim, Sue and Ann? Why not Miss. Sally and Puffy her Persian cat? Why not Frank and his 8 year old niece?
Logically you can’t open marriage to one group and not others. So marriage is either only between a man and woman or it is open to any and all constructs. There is no middle ground.
As I said, if it was truly just about equal rights, this would have ended 20+ years ago with adjustments to the civil union laws. All those things you mentioned and more ("Legal marriage is all about rights of ownership of the other person and their possessions. If you don't think so then explain the responsibilities of who owns the body of a person who dies")are all easily settled under civil law.
I'm not disagreeing with any of it per-say. Still it doesn't negate what I've said about marriage not being a Biblical law. Spiritually the tenants of marriage are best honored. But as the Christian Marriage site points out even "Christian marriages" have a 41-43% chance of ending in divorce. Though it doesn't specifically state Christian marriages. And that stat is lower than the actual divorce rate. Wouldn't it be a sin for a Christian marriage to end in divorce. The Bible says it is.

There is a study out that says 50% of the 50+% of marriages ending in divorce are filed by women. Out of that number less than 1/3 are for reasons of infidelity, abuse of any kind etc. The primary reason(s) are listed as 'he doesn't fulfill her needs'.

In the case of "morality" as long as they are not causing any actual harm to anyone else wouldn't the "sin" of gay marriage be on their souls? And there also are more than one study out that says on the majority gay tendencies are not by choice. And to say it sets an example that homosexuality will cause otherwise heterosexual people to sin is nonsense.

As long as they aren't causing direct harm to anyone else I see no spiritual rationale for dictating they follow the moral standards of someone else. Especially those who believe in the freedom of choices shouldn't be obstructed by anyone else.

Oh, and after many years of intense line upon line, line upon line, precept upon precept, precept upon precept Bible study I would need to be clarified by more than just opinions.
free thinker

Farmington, MI

#161 Mar 15, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
Legal marriage is all about rights of ownership of the other person and their possessions. If you don't think so then explain the responsibilities of who owns the body of a person who dies.
It's about way more than that.
http://www.vtmarriage.org/resources/fwi_polic...
free thinker

Farmington, MI

#162 Mar 15, 2013
This would be next:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive//ldn...
Gays and lesbians won't be satisfied until they have forced churches and religious institutions to sanction their relationships and perform weddings or civil ceremonies. It's already happening elsewhere.
This isn't about 'equal rights' and if you believe that you are beyond naive. It's about forcing their beliefs on the church.
On a side note, I can't wait to see them try this with their local mosque.
Thor

Rockford, MI

#163 Mar 15, 2013
FLBeaver wrote:
<quoted text>
The goal of the homosexual community has nothing to do with “equal rights under the law.” It is to gain moral acceptance of a behavior. And at that point the door has been opened wide. If it is ok for Jim and Jack to marry, why not Jim, Sue and Ann? Why not Miss. Sally and Puffy her Persian cat? Why not Frank and his 8 year old niece?
Logically you can’t open marriage to one group and not others. So marriage is either only between a man and woman or it is open to any and all constructs. There is no middle ground.
Why is it that the religious zealots cannot understand the concept of consent?

Animals cannot consent to marriage.
Children are not mature enough to consent to marriage.

It doesn't hurt anyone for two gay consenting adults to get married.
It would be a lot more honest for the religious fundies to just admit they don't want gay marriage simply because of their religious indoctrination, and not because of any logical reason.
Thor

Rockford, MI

#164 Mar 15, 2013
FLBeaver wrote:
<quoted text>
Civil unions are not seperate but equal. As a point of fact they could be more "equal" than marriage if the law made it that way. That is the point; that from a legal rights perspective, civil unions can be made exactly the same as the legal rights in a marriage. A hetrosexual couple could also use them if they weren't religious and did not want to get "married."
Co-habitation existed long before marriage but marriage involves a legal and/or religious agreement, and religion existed long before governments. By definition, living together isn't marriage. You are confusing the two.
Try again.
In the United States, a secular country, marriage is recognized as a legal construct, not a religious construct. Religious doctrine has no standing in our secular law.
Man created marriage thousands of years before man created the Abrahamic religions.

Civil unions are not the same as marriage. If they were the same they would not have two different names.

This isn't any different than the separate drinking fountains for whites and coloreds.
SeenItBefore

Three Rivers, MI

#165 Mar 15, 2013
Thor wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is it that the religious zealots cannot understand the concept of consent?
Animals cannot consent to marriage.
Children are not mature enough to consent to marriage.
It doesn't hurt anyone for two gay consenting adults to get married.
It would be a lot more honest for the religious fundies to just admit they don't want gay marriage simply because of their religious indoctrination, and not because of any logical reason.
Animals cannot consent to marriage. Yet there are animals that do mate for life. Are we to take that as a religious/Biblical edict? I think not. Well, maybe they have been reading the Bible and we are just not aware of it.

Seriously though. From my studies of the Bible there is no Biblical requirement for marriage.

Is marriage a spiritual uniting of two people? Absolutely yes. That's the entire purpose for faith based marriages. To go beyond the business aspect of marriage. Thus the purpose of '[to take] in sickness AND health, for richer OR poorer, for better OR worse, till death us do part'. Of which those vows can not be found anywhere in the Bible. If marriage was solely and intended to be only a religious union it would seem they would be found there. And the definition of what love is found in 1 Corinthians 13:4-8 says nothing about it being between man and woman.

I am not trying to demean religious based marriage. However there is NOWHERE in the Bible that makes marriage obligatory in the legality sense. That is what is found in the law pertaining to marriage.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Grand Rapids Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Crooked Hillary's Tax Return Challenge To Donald 1 hr good grief anyhow 48
Does anyone know why the Chez Ami Bowling alley... (Sep '14) Sat Jody 3
Why do people act ghetto? I am talking about al... (Dec '12) Sat Not ghetto at all 43
News The BUZZ: SSI has 'Bullish' Outlook for RV Sector Sat Batch 37 Pain Is ... 5
Local News Women (Apr '09) Sat Jayne Mansfield 2,716
Old things and places we remember from the Gran... (Feb '09) Fri Pandaluv63 1,109
Grand Rapids; a good place to live? (Mar '12) Sep 18 Ex-Grand Rapids Guy 189

Grand Rapids Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Grand Rapids Mortgages