Surpeme Court Gay Marriage Cases....

[regexcellent]

What new posters?

I don't count; I'm actually a highly elaborate spambot for Wegmans.

[Aeson]

Not that elaborate ... and while it's been a long time, it at least hasn't been 25+ years since Ecofarm.

[self biased]

What new posters?

I don't count; I'm actually a highly elaborate spambot for Wegmans.

wegmans is my promised land.

[MrFun]

You used a word that is impossible for Ben to understand. Please use very simple terms only.

my bad

[DaShi]

I used to make a "circle of death" around them so they're fine if they don't move but for some reason they always seemed to push one of their feelers into the salt and then the pain of having that melt causes them to go whole hog over the salt circle resulting in them turning into a puddle of goo.

Jesus, I haven't done that in 25+ years. I'm getting old.

Ugh, now I'm imagining little slugs in my cereal.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Ugh, now I'm imagining little slugs in my cereal.

Do they crackle and fizz when you pour milk on them? Kellogg's Frosty Slugs?

[Imran Siddiqui]

No, they did not. There was no set NT canon prior to the Vulgate. Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus confirm this to be the case as they are older than the Canon, and do not have the same listing of books as found in modern bibles.

The Canon was set by Pope Damasus, not before and not after. Anytime a Protestant uses the set NT canon - they are affirming Pope Damasus and the decision made in the 4th century. Why? Because that was how the Vulgate was, and it wasn't even until the 19th century that it became supplanted at least in the English world by the KJV.

In 367, Athanasius gave a list of books that he call canonized, which were the exact books Damascus validated. Origin in the early 200s was likely using the same 27 books of the NT that are accepted today. Both prior to Damasus.

Yet, they refused to use the Vulgate canon. Does that sound to me like they felt that scripture is authoritative - or that they desired to claim the authority of the magisterium to teach and interpret scripture for themselves?

Consider the Vulgate was far less accurate than the earlier Greek manuscripts, it was more akin to correcting an error. And also allowing the people to read the text - in their own languages. By doing so, of course, they made it far harder for them to interpret scripture as authoritative when everyone could read it, and not just the clergy, and enter the debate.

I'm not even saying that either. I'm saying that insofar as concerns the essence of the Christian faith, that Scripture is authoritative (which is exactly what the catechism teaches).

And I'm saying I see no proof of it. Claiming that holding on to an ancient affirmation of faith means you have to accept everything else done by the Western Church is a fallacy.

Where does scripture say that slavery is positive and beneficial? It doesn't. The interpretation hasn't changed that scripture condemns slavery.

Ask Southern preachers who used Scriptures to justify slavery pre-Civil War (slaves obey your masters does tend to help their view).

I was a Protestant, and every time I went to look back on an issue between the two - either it was indecisive (ie, I was arguing from silence), or the text actually supported Catholicism! That bothered me until I learned the history that I had it exactly backwards. It's like arguing against the Book of Mormon with the Book of Mormon as your primary authority!

And I have looked at Scripture and have seen, for one, Luther is right on grace. The Roman Catholic Church has no monopoly on Scripture. The Western Church was one after all, and even though it has splintered, it doesn't mean parts of that splinter aren't members of the same tradition. The Roman Catholics aren't the only heirs regardless what mother church would say.

If the LCMS (which comes from the same root as Luther), explicitly argues that they do not have Apostolic Succession - is an admission that whatever instance that they possess it - it comes from after the split, with the ECLA, not before. The only real church which has an argument for it is the Anglicans, and there's no evidence that they had any validly consecrated bishops.

ELCA is in full communion with the Episcopal Church, any apostolic succession (not that most Lutheran care about such stuff) can flow, and I believe was strengthened, though the "Called to Common Mission" with TEC.

[MichaeltheGreat]

forumfart

[MichaeltheGreat]

Ask Southern preachers who used Scriptures to justify slavery pre-Civil War (slaves obey your masters does tend to help their view).

Not only that, Leviticus expressly allows purchase and inheritance of slaves. The only restrictions were on excessively brutal treatment, (at least faces - can't put out an eye or knock out a tooth, ) and various prohibitions on enslaving or buying fellow Israelites.

[Ben Kenobi]

In 367, Athanasius gave a list of books that he call canonized, which were the exact books Damascus validated. Origin in the early 200s was likely using the same 27 books of the NT that are accepted today. Both prior to Damasus.

While the books were widely accepted - the Canon was not exclusive until after Damasus. Athanasius, while very influential, didn't speak for the body as a whole. Damasus did. It's not like he made the list up out of whole cloth - of course Damasus' decision would use the widely accepted books.

Consider the Vulgate was far less accurate than the earlier Greek manuscripts

Actually, just the contrary. There are sources in the Vulgate that we don't currently possess for which the Vulgate is actually the most accurate, and surperior to say Vaticanus. I would argue based on the extant evidence that the early Vulgates are actually the best sources extant. Vaticanus is great but it doesn't have all the books.

And also allowing the people to read the text - in their own languages.

Here's a question. Which was published first - the Douay Rheims or the KJV.

By doing so, of course, they made it far harder for them to interpret scripture as authoritative when everyone could read it, and not just the clergy, and enter the debate.

Nonsense - the definitive Catholic English translation came out before the KJV. You're reading into the times what didn't exist. All educated people until just about the last 50 or 60 years knew and were taught Latin.

And I'm saying I see no proof of it.

That scripture is Authoritative? The authority the Creeds possess derives from the Magisterium. The magisterium affirms that Scripture is authoritative. You yourself just quoted Athanasius who affirms the present list of books.

Claiming that holding on to an ancient affirmation of faith means you have to accept everything else done by the Western Church is a fallacy.

Didn't say that. But it does mean that you are accepting that the Magisterium is authoritative and that part of their authority includes affirmation that Scripture itself is authoritative. It all fits together. Part of their teaching and interpretative authority.

Ask Southern preachers

Protestant preachers have no authority to me, Imran.

And I have looked at Scripture and have seen, for one, Luther is right on grace.

Luther teaches what the Catholic church teaches on grace. What you are arguing against is Luther and what Luther perceives the Catholic Church teaches - not what it actually does teach.

The Roman Catholic Church has no monopoly on Scripture.

Yes, actually they do. In terms of the Canon, yes, yes they do. It was decided some 1100 years prior to Luther.

it doesn't mean parts of that splinter aren't members of the same tradition.

Esau sold his birthright for a meal. What did God say to Esau? Did he let Esau come back? No, no he didn't. Those who have wilfully chosen to divide the body and remain out of communion cannot claim to be part of the same tradition. They themselves have rejected it.

The Roman Catholics aren't the only heirs regardless what mother church would say.

Never said we were.

ELCA is in full communion with the Episcopal Church

As of quite recently. Which is why, as I said, the actual Lutherans say that they do not affirm apostolic succession.

"Called to Common Mission" with TEC.

I would argue that ELCA is simply another branch of Anglicanism. They themselves have converted en masse.

[Kidlicious]

Even Satan believes in Christ, Imran. I'm not saying there aren't ways to get where he wants to go wrt gays and gay marriage (I did that myself when CivNation 1st came here before being banned by MtG) but to claim to be a Christian while disavowing one of the foundations of Christian theology is bit much.

Have you read the Bible and compared the way it talks about the church and then compared that to the way the church is in reality? If you're honest you will have questions.

[Kidlicious]

Christians believe that the bible is authoritative.

I'm gonna let God decide that, what about you?

[Kidlicious]

On this issue, he does have a point. If you don't actually believe in the authority of the Bible, you can hardly be called a Christian in any meaningful sense.

The Bible was written for other generations. That doesn't mean it isn't helpful, but some of it just isn't relevant to us. Can you see that?

[kentonio]

Supreme Court On Gay Marriage: 'Sure, Who Cares'

WASHINGTON—Ten minutes into oral arguments over whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to marry one another, a visibly confounded Supreme Court stopped legal proceedings Tuesday and ruled that gay marriage was “perfectly fine” and that the court could “care less who marries whom.”

“Yeah, of course gay men and women can get married. Who gives a ****?” said Chief Justice John Roberts, who interrupted attorney Charles Cooper’s opening statement defending Proposition 8, which rescinded same-sex couples’ right to marry in California. “Why are we even seriously discussing this?”

“Does anyone else up here care about this?” Roberts added as his eight colleagues began shaking their heads and saying, “No,” “Nah,” and “I also don’t care about this.” “Great. Same-sex marriage is legal in the United States of America. Do we have anything of actual import on the docket, or are we done for the day?”

Before Roberts officially ended proceedings, sources confirmed that all nine justices were reportedly dumbfounded, asking why the case was even coming before them and wondering aloud if some sort of mistake had been made. Calling marriage equality a “no-brainer,” members of the High Court appeared not just confused but irritated when Proposition 8 defenders argued that gay marriage was not a national issue but a state matter.

Moreover, when Attorney Cooper said that gay marriage could harm the moral fabric of the country and hurt the institution of marriage, Associate Justice Sotomayor asked, “What are you even talking about?” while Justice Anthony Kennedy reportedly muttered, “You got to be ****ing kidding me,” under his breath.

“I have to interject, Mr. Cooper,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said as the attorney argued that the government has legitimate reasons to discourage same-sex couples from getting married. “Do you honestly care this much about this issue? Because if you do, you’re a real goddamn idiot. Actually, you sound as dumb as dog ****, and you are wasting our time.”

“Should gay marriage be legal?” Ginsburg continued. “Yes. Done. Case closed. Goodbye. Christ, were we seriously scheduled to spend the next few months debating this?”

Even the typically conservative wing of the court maintained that, despite their personal views, it would be “downright silly” for them to rule that same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.

“I’m a strict Originalist, Mr. Cooper, and I’m looking at a 14th Amendment that forbids any state from denying any person equal protection of the law,” Associate Justice Antonin Scalia said. “So, unless we are the most uncivilized society on the face of God’s green earth, I think we can all agree that a gay person is in fact a person. So what I’m saying is, who the **** are we to tell a person who he or she can get married to? This is dumb. Can we talk about a real case now, please?”

Before adjourning the court, Roberts said there would be no official opinion on the case because it’s just “common goddamn sense,” and then addressed gay men and women directly.

“Get married, don’t get married, do whatever you want,” Roberts said. “It’s the opinion of this court that we don’t give two ****s what you do.”

“C’mon, let’s go get some food,” added Roberts, as the eight other justices followed him out the door.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/sup...o-cares,31812/

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm gonna let God decide that, what about you?

God is pretty clear about that.

Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

You've already said that sin is righteous, so I'm not really sure you even understand what the commandments are, but hey.

It's your life.

Good luck with telling God that homosexuality is a-ok and all that 'abomination' stuff is mere rubbish that can be safely ignored.