Jimmy Swaggart made the following comment last week:

"I'm trying to find the correct name for it ... this utter absolute,
asinine, idiotic stupidity of men marrying men. ... I've never seen a man in
my life I wanted to marry. And I'm gonna be blunt and plain; if one ever
looks at me like that, I'm gonna kill him and tell God he died."

Once you've picked your jaws off of the floor, feel free to discuss. I personally don't know whether to laugh at that statement or cry...

Personally I think the statement is one of ignorance and defiance.
Mr. Swaggart doesn't agree with gay marriage and thats fine. He speaks his mind about it and thats fine too. Then he says he'd kill someone for looking at him in a way he thinks is gay, thats not fine. Using that as an excuse the justify murder in his mind is outrageous and disgusting.
I'm not to familiar with Mr. Swaggarts background but I always thought he was a bit of a country bumpkin, redneck type. If I'm correct in that assumption then this is nothing surprising as that seems to be one of the three major groups of people that make this type of remark. The other two being the strongly religious and the retired.

I was just surprised that he was seemingly being inconsistent with that "thou shalt not kill" thing that Christians are supposed to follow... B)

:lol: :lol:

What a nut! He's not your typical Christian, Bweezy. Just another nut :P Besides, I'm Christian and I believe that gay marriage is just not my business -- if someone wants to do it, fine. Nothing wrong with it, in my opinion.

That was still funny though!

Lelana

Well bweezy, not all christians inturpret the bible in the same way. Some can be more militant than others and believe that the old testament justifies this in the eyes of god therefore superceding the "thou shalt not" comandments.
It sucks, but with great freedom comes many many cans of nuts.

After spending a good several hours on the topic of gay marriages with chex one night:

biblically, homosexuality is wrong. This goes BEYOND marriage. This, regardless of interpretation, cannot be refuted. It's right in there...by penalty of death. But if gays want to get married/coupledom...none of my business. Really. Christian or not, I'm not picking up that stone and throwing it unless god comes down right now and tells me to.

I will retract my comments from that arguement about marriage being a church affair though (not that any of you got to witness it). Marriage IS NOT a church affair. Churches just take it upon themselves to marry people. Marriage is a celebration of commitment. In the days of old, if I humped the girl next door for kicks, likely that would be interpreted as a marriage proposal, or in some countries...marriage.

Government, however, should have no part in the institution of marriage. This was a long drawn out explanation between myself and chex, but frankly put, without extending this and being longwinded, government and marriage should not be of the same entity. There should be only one type of couple to register as on forms This whole commonlaw/married/etc is ridiculous and useless trivial beurocracy. Gay marriage is trivial beurocracy. Marriage is trivial beurocracy. You are either married/couple or you arent. And just because you are married shouldn't entitle you to a different set of forms and laws. Demographics should be the only purpose of marriage in government. My opinion.

Simply put I believe marriage is celebration of unionhood. Thats it. It is neither of a church matter or a state matter. It is a family matter. If you want me to sign a form when I have this celebration, fine. But thats it. There should be no controvercy afterwords. Church does not own the copyright to marriage. Neither does government. Allow citizens to sign a form together (couple and witnesses) and declare themselves married by celebration. Noone needs to stand there and marry a couple. Once again, beurocracy.


Now that my rant is over and open to debate (maturely without being called racist this time I hope :P ) who the hell is Jimmy Swaggart?

Swaggart is a TV evangelist and all-around Soldier of God. That's pretty much all you need to know about him.

Yeah, so's eating pork. (well, I don't know if it explicitly stated a penalty of death, but it's still against the rules) I gotta say that a lot of people are selective about what they think is a GREAT EVIL and what isn't relevant anymore.

As for the statement in question:

I'm really curious to know why he thinks it's "stupid" for men to marry men. Okay, I get it, it's a mortal sin, but what makes it stupid? I always thought sin was evil, not stupid.

Who gives a shit? I've never seen a raw fish in my life I wanted to eat, but that doesn't mean I have to denounce everyone who eats sushi.

I like this quote because not only is it an un-Christian thing to say, I kind of wonder how he plans to sneak a murder past an all-knowing God.

My thoughts on the issue:

I believe that marriage is, at its base, a legal contract between two individuals and would agree with Popo that religion shouldn't dictate anything about it. I say *legal* contract, because otherwise, you couldn't receive damages for the other side not holding up their end of the bargain (alimony, child support, percentages of assets), so I do think the government has SOME say in it. Also, a marriage has to be recognized by some sort of authority, or I could just claim to be married to any random female I wanted (or more than one)

I had an interesting discussion about gay marriage with a Catholic friend of mine (for the record, I'm Catholic too, but I was raised in a Vatican II household and she was raised old-school), and she claimed that gay marriage goes against God. Which is fine, I said, but argued that marriage is a secular entity. She said that's not the way it was intended, and that a marriage doesn't count unless it's sanctified--I argued about friends of mine who are atheists, but married (to each other of course), obviously having conducted a civil ceremony. Her answer to that was that, while it may not be sanctified, it's less offensive to God because at least it's Man and Woman, and God intended. I think the argument went in circles after that.

Back in 1867, when the nation was founded, the idea of a hetero couple living together, never mind same-sex couples, wasn't in vogue. Marriage became a government responsibility to administrate marraiges of different faiths, and was restricted to unions of different genders.

As for legal ramifications, laws governing Marriage were enacted in part to give a bundle of rights to married couples, which, oddly enough, have a lot to do with what happens on the dissolution of marriage. In all Canadian jurisdictions, upon marriage, old wills are invalidated, and upon death everything is assumed to be left to your spouse (or divided between spouse and a child of another union). Laws also state rights for support payments and custody and access to children of the union.

However, Popo is right, you don't need to be married for such rights to flow. In the 1960's and 70's, laws were changed so taht "Common-law" couples (hetero couples living together a minimum of 1 year or so) were given some of the same rights (notably support and child custody rights) as married couples.

Recently, Manitoba and a few other provinces have extended this so that all couples who live together a minimum period of time, are given the same bundle of rights, regardless of sexual orientation.

The only thing Marraige adds to the mix is that it gives the couple the bundle of rights immediately (unlike unmarried couples, who in most cases have to wait awhile).

In today's modern legal framework, the only significance of marriage is that it triggers the package of rights into action sooner (as of the wedding day). Beyond that, there is no legal difference between marriage and cohabitation in many (if not all) provinces.

Isn't Jimmy Swaggart the guy who cried his eyes out asking forgiveness a few years back because he'd been caught screwing around on his wife?
Or was it another of the many televangelists who got caught doing wrong? <_<

My favourite quote regarding conservatives and sex:

A conservative is one who is at once mortally afraid of the liberating power of sex and is, at the same time, secretly obsessed with sex -- the more perverse the better. And totally and completely unconscious of what's going on in their head.


And re: gay marriage - I agree that marriage is marriage and why call it something different because it's a same-sex marriage?

People should mind their own business before minding others'.

One weekend in 1987, it was revealed that Swaggart was cavorting with prostitutes.

That Sunday, a 13 year old Bweezy was channel surfing, when a crying Swaggart appeared on his morning show, crying like a baby, exclaiming that "he had sinned" and begging for forgiveness from his flock.

That was one of three "scandals" involving televanalists in the 80's that I can think of (one was Jim Baker's affair with Jessica Hahn, and another was Oral Roberts' proclamation that God told him that if viewers didn't give him something like 8.7 million dollars, God was going to kill him).

In the States, common-law marriage is, well, not very common. According to http://www.unmarried.org/common.html, only 15 states (plus D.C.) recognize any form of common-law marriage, and in three of those states (including Ohio), you can't enter into it anymore (though existing common-law marriages are grandfathered). So for me to get any legal standing, I'd need a regular marriage.

I love that quote. I'd put it on my whiteboard if I wasn't concerned with offending probably 75% of the people here...

And what a sickening display it was! <_<

And many of us waited impatiently for his demise when he was very short of his goal (about $1 million rings a bell) within the last hour. I remember predicting a last minute pledge from a good bible belt christian would save him in the end. Well, if any of you don't know, a god fearin' Texan made the final pledge to keep Oral from being taken home. Personally, I'd bet there never was a last minute pledge, just a running total as to how much needed to be claimed to save his skin.

As to marriage, it is primarily a diplomatic/business contract and was such long before religion entered into it. Personally, I think marriage should be open to freely consenting adults regardless of gender or number even (there was a California proposition on "corporate" marriages for more than 2 people.) With religious unions open to whatever restriction the particular religion wants to put on it.

Well, I am new here, but have been around the forums in the WP with the Yankees and they are just so ultra conservative and backwards in my opinion.

Canada has been the kind of place that has, I think, a greater ability to be open to progressive ideas because our policy has been towards new Canadians being able to keep some of their own previous heritage with them, without penalty. In the American melting pot, "you are either with us or against us" kind of view has kept them mired in their own narrowness and relatively closed lense view of the world.

I love being a Canadian because the majority of us are different from each other, and it is precisely 'diversity' that is the best guarantee of democracy that there is...

As the British historian, Lord Acton, put it : "Liberty provokes diversity and diversity ensures liberty by providing the means of organization". (And he meant organization of people against too homogenous a state; especially meaning, no dictatorship).

********

But gee whiz! I am just compulsively heterosexual!

I will say one thing here. God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.
I'm not a religious person, and I don't think killing gays (or anyone for that matter) is right, but I'm against gay marriage.

I personally know a couple who is gay, (not leagally mariied, but they think so) and are trying to adobt a child. No kid is going to gorw up normal without the normal family unit of a mother and a father. Except for cases of death or divorce, in which case they know why thery've only got one parent (that may sound weird, but thats the only way I can explain it). If a child is raised with two dads, or 2 moms, that will warp them.


Theres my 2 cents, but I'm a conservative redneck. :hide:

First of all, I say on Gay Marriage... I don't care.... let's move on w/ our lives, why should I, as a Hetrosexual male care about if Gays can marry like the rest of us.

Now, as for the above quote. Can you define, "normal" for me. What exactly is this concept of normal you speak of? I grew up in one parent family, sure, I may different from other people, but, is that such a crime, that we should worry about? I mean honestly, we need to get rid of this idea of "normality" around here. Why should people be opposing their views on "normaility" on others?

Also, those of us who believe in evolution laugh whole heartedly at the concept of "Adam and Eve" - it is irrelevant, IMHO, to the gay marriage issue.

Secondly, if a child is raised in a loving family, regardless of whether both parents are of the same gender or not, I would venture a guess that they will in all likelihood become productive members of society. The only issue they will face is prejudice from those who look down upon or discriminate against homosexuals.

Well, I believe that homosexuality, in marriage or not, is wrong. I don't, however, believe that killing homosexuals is the right thing to do. Christians should minister to them in the same way they would murderers, thieves, or anyone else. Let God judge.

But, who is the arbiter of what god wants?

There are so many interpretations.

Everyone thinks what they believe is right.

I am willing to say that I don't know everything and I'll even give it a .1 percent chance that there is a god.

You can't say you give a .1 percent chance that there isn't a god because it's in the rules that you can't or you'll burn in hell.

I like this quote:

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

Well, now, you're getting into the "is there a God or isn't there" type argument, which isn't really the point here, but okay.

Look at your house. Do you say, "This house came about by accident?" No. There was an architect and a builder.

You said, "let god judge", re: gays.

And you know how these threads get hijacked. :P

You even lumped gay people in with murderers - "ministering" to them the same way.

I don't believe they need "ministering" to.



Maybe someday we'll really know how the universe came into being, but I'm not sure there had to be an architect or a builder.

Well, you could argue that the house did show up there out of nothingness.... unless you see something for yourself, there's no 100% way of knowing for sure one way or another as to how that house existed.

And say there *is* a god. How do we know the Christian God is right? If God is really all powerful, don't you think the book that purports to be "his" word, namely, the bible, would be a clear and unambiguous document?

Instead, we are left with a publication that often contradicts itself, is ambiguous and leaves much of its meaning open to interpretation to any nut job out there.

the "first cause" argument - namely, that something must have set the wheels in motion to create this place, is the strongest one in favour of one or more gods. However, there is no evidence that this creator is a Chrisitan god, and further, there is no evidence that such a creator particularly cares whether or not your life partner is of the same gender as you are.

God is. Just as God has always been, and will always be, he is also the arbitrator of justice, and our savior.

As far as homosexuality goes, well. As taken from one of my good Christian friends -- "God is God, and men are men. The bible was written by men, not by God, therefore it has some faults." Not everything in the bible is correct, and (no offense to God) but its pretty outdated too! But heyla, not much we can do.

I think whatever your sexual pref is, whatever. Its your choice. But I'm pretty lenient with that -- I've had numerous friends who have tried it out, and one or two have stayed that way. I'm not about to stone them to death because of it! I like my friends just where they are thanks ;)

/two cents

:hide:

Lelana

Pardon me for hijacking, but I have to discuss this.

If the Bible is not the Word of God, then where do we get our ideas of sin and salvation?

Oh, I'm not saying the WHOLE bible is bad. Most of it is good. But there's some things (women's rights and stuff) that I just don't believe in.

Lelana

Well, how can one decide what's right and wrong?

Person A can decide that it's okay to commit adultery because that's the wrong part of the Bible. Person B says it's okay to steal for the same reason. Person 3 says it's okay to get drunk, again, the same reasoning.

Eventually, you lose all concept of sin. And what is salvation without sin?

They are man-made concepts drawn up long ago by wannabe philosophers and sprinkled with exagerated accounts of middle-eastern history.

There is no evidence that the bible is the manifestation of any supreme being, and that its contents are anything more than the postulations of philosophers from thousands of years ago.

As for deciding what is right and what is wrong, those concepts are relative, and evolve within societies which dictates the norms of the time. Such norms are based on both cultural, environmental and geographic features, and also, I would argue, through logic. For instance - killing is wrong, because if you say its right, someone may kill you. Same with adultery and theft. These are not "divine rules", but rather manifestations of societal logic.

Man-made concepts? Do you realize that there is more evidence for the resurrection of Jesus than there was that Napoleon existed?

In fact, the Bible does tell us some scientific information that would not have been known at the time. For instance, in Job, it talks about the morning stars singing together. Only recently have scientists discovered that stars do, in fact, emit noises.

So, right and wrong is relative, based on logic and culture. Say I live in a culture where it's permissible to kill your elders when they get too old to work. Is that right, taking human life?

1. the "Singing Stars" concept you speak of may have been metaphorical, or an outlandish and erroneous suggestion that earth bound people could hear stars (which they most certainly can't). There is no evidence that the reference lends itself to a greater understanding of science. Secondly, I find it odd that someone who is advocating on behalf of the bible's authenticity would look to science for validation, since science has all but made certain that the concept of Adam and Eve is a total myth, thereby rendering the very premise of the text into question. If you put the bible to scientific scrutiny, it fails in most respects. As I always say, if Jesus were born today, he'd be put in an asylum, just like every other nut job who claims to be the offspring of a god.

Lastly, to state the opposite, stars do emit noises. They don't sing. And they emit noises separately from one another, they don't do it in concert with each other.

2. The thought that there is more evidence of the resurrection than the existance of Napolean is simply an untrue myth perpetuated by Christian zealots. The only "evidence" of any resurrection are alleged "eyewitness account" of people who all happened to be his desicples and had a vested interest in perpetuating the myth, and who recorded their "evidence" in written from over the forty years following the alleged event. This is hardly strong evidence.

3. As I said, right and wrong is relative. I don't think it is right to kill, but it may well be "right" in another culture based on other assumptions and conditions not present in my own culture. Maybe you should ask noted Christian George W. Bush if he believes it is wrong - after all, he has already sent 1100 Americans and countless thousands of Iraqi's to death in Iraq, along with dozens of prisoners while Govenor of Texas.

How has science rendered Adam and Eve a total myth? In fact, if you look at mitrochondrial DNA, which comes directly from your mother, it proves that we were all descended from 1 woman.

How would you explain the historically documented empty tomb, recorded in 4 historical books? Also, the disciples didn't have a vested interest, unless they had a death wish. 11 of the 12 apostles were martyred, and the other one was exiled.

Also, I think that that whole "George Bush is a Christian" stuff is nonsense. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't, but his political beliefs do not represent mine, whether or not he is a Christian.

What could justify taking someone's life? Any examples?

well said Kana. Well said indeed!

Hence the nature of faith. Noone said we were perfect. Infact God called mankind fools by nature over a dozen and a half times in the bible.

Proof of gods existance?

That's what prophesy is for.
Jeremiah and Isiah both predicted the future. As did Moses, and Joshua. Daniel predicted the future. Jesus predicted the future. And these men of god were miraculously close to the truth if not dead on.
We arentt alking arbitrary-type predictions either. We're talking full out names and places and even dates in some cases.

But Im not gonna jump on the "does god exist?" arguement. Because both sides have valid arguements. And neither side will usually sway. instead I have this to say:

Welcome to growing up. Things are never going to be black and white ever again.
Things wont always have a yes or no answer. There will always be more than one choice. And you will never know which is the right one to make.

I guess thats why you have to believe in God

I won't justify taking a life, because I don't believe in that, and don't live in a culture or society which in my view justifies such actions. You could ask James Kopp, the Christian Fundamentalist who murdered doctors who offered abortion services. I'm sure he'll have plenty of answers for your.

The DNA argument is another fallacy. You cannot determine that we all descended from one person unless you find the DNA remnants of that alleged common ancestor, and then tested it against the human population as a whole. The DNA argument you site is not only indicative of bad science, but wishful thinking of a group who yearn for scientific backing to justify their faith, but can't actually find any.

Science suggests, at this point in time, that we evolved, and were not created. Until such time as cogent evidence favouring an alternative viewpoint emerges, Adam and Eve will remain as nothing more than a fable and hoax perpetrated on the Billions who base their religious beliefs upon it.

Hmm. empty tomb. Maybe his followers removed it? Gee, you think that might have happened? Or perhaps the four historical books were authored based on accounts of desciples, who had a vested interest in propogating the myth? There are any number of logical reasons for this that are for more likely than "he was resurrected".

And of course the desciples had a vested interest. If they were to admit that Jesus was a fraud, then their lives would have been invalidated. David Koresh and his desciples had a similar ferver. They all died for their beliefs too. It doesn't mean that there was anything to their belief system.

So you're saying God walked on earth and called us fools? When did god actually *say* anything? As far as I can tell, there is no evidence God has ever spoken to any person. Only person's claiming to speak on his behalf have said things.

It's easy to predict the future when the Bible is written after all the material facts have occurred prior to people writing it. It is more likely that history was rewritten and exagerated in some cases so that it appeared as though prophecies came true. Even if some people did predict the future, it doesn't mean any great being was behind it.

In 1985, I predicted that the 1986 Stanley Cup champ would be Montreal, even though no one in their right mind saw that happening. Does that mean God was behind my prediction.

What about Nostradamus - he had a few accurate prophecies - does that mean his is the work of god as well?

Prophecies, even if we do accept them as accurate and not fabrications of fictional writers of long ago, are not proof of the existance of god or the validity of any particular religion.

Popo said it best when he referred to faith.

Religion is based on faith. not logic, but faith. I personally don't call it "faith", I more realistically call it "wishful thinking".

Everyone is free to have faith in whatever they want. Feel free to live your life based on what yoru Priest and some 2000 year old questionable work of quasi-fiction has to say - I'm not going to stop you (unless you trample on my rights in the process).

However, even though it would be nice to believe in angels and heaven and that if I do what a somewhat incomprehensible series of testaments tells me to do I'll be rewarded in some sort of perfect afterlife, I think I'll just live my life on the basis of deductive reasoning, logic and rational thought - for I am but a man, I cannot understand god, and am not arrogant enough to pretend to understand god. If god wants me to believe in anything, he can damn well come to earth, slap me upside the head, and tell me in person what to do and what to believe in. In the absence of such intervention, I'll use the tools of my brain and ability to think for myself using deductive reasoning techniques to determine my own path in life.

The bible does not state all of mankind derived from Adam and Eve. But Eve was the first woman, and Adam the first man. But god created many more. Genesis has all sorts of references to civilization outside of Eden. It even talks about non-human entities breeding with non-eden women.....the giants of Rephaim, etc. It talks about dozens of groups outside of Adams immediate geneology. Adam and Eve were just the ones made caretaker of the garden.

But like I said, dozens of pages of evidence can be presented for both sides.

I for one see a huge problem with carbon dating. And the way they teach it to you in university makes you shake your head at it as avalid scientific tool. I also see a huge problem with "freak skeletons" of evolving man. Yet no single society or graveyard of bones has been found to support an entire society of "freaks" I can compare australopithacus with the skeleton of a child deformed by thalidomide in the 60's.

But thats just my opinion.

Its an arguement that ahs no clear winning side. Although I have seen my fair share of debates in the U of S between atheists and non, in which the atheist side made the non break down into tears. But I blame this on too much passion and lack of study for the non side. They cracked under pressure.

It's always tough of the biblical side to win a debate against an atheist or agnostic - Christians have to stand by the bible, which isn't the sturdiest and most cogent of texts - while atheists can draw on all sorts of sources and attack from so many different angles. IN effect, the cards are stacked against Christians in such debates - they should be commended for just showing up, IMHO. (That may have sounded condescending - it wasn't meant to be - just pointing out the fundamental difficulty they face)

lol naustradamus was a crackpot. Ive read his poem "prophetic", the entire thing. It really makes no sense whatsoever. Really. None. Ive read several translatins of the poem (some words have multiple meanings) and still didnt get anything out of it. He talks about stars, and the pope breifly, and some armies. But nothing prophetic is mentioned. And the poem itself cannot be prophetic chronologically because those who claim to see the prophesy in it have to take a couple words here and a couple words there to make a coherent non-existant pattern of prophesy. Naustradamus....why in the world was his poem even published. I'd have burned it for being crap. (no offence to his literary fans)

Very true. But I guess its all about the faith....

kinda makes you wonder though.......

A lot of people who have "found god" feel as though he has in some way shape or form. I know I do. It's weird...not easy to explain. I was a hardcore anti-christian atheist for a long time!

But you're right in the end it all comes down to faith. "What do I believe" and some people even ask "What do I believe and why". I guess I falll between both categories somedays.

In actual fact, it says in the bible that asking God to slap you upside the head is the sign of an evil generation. By all rights, we have all the proof we need to believe and have faith in God; if that isn't enough for you, then that's not His problem.

For me, at least, it took more of an "awakening" vacation for me to realize exactly what God is (an entity, infallible, not human, and basically genderless; yet our Father and Lord at the same time), and now, I can feel it in my heart that he's there.

Popo's right -- it is very difficult to explain. But once you know God is there, then the world somehow seems better. I gave up before I truly met God -- my ideas of knowing God were going to church every Sunday and singing. Now, I haven't been to church since February, yet I feel closer to God than I ever have before!

And again, Popo's right -- it all comes down to faith, faith in God, faith in Jesus as our saviour, and faith in life itself.

/two cents

Lelana

And, may I add, faith in the Bible. That's where Christian ideas come from.

A cynic like myself would suggest that the only reason why it says that is because the authors of the bible knew that there was no way "god" could ever prove himself, because he doesn't exist. One way to quell cynics like me is to brand them as evil for demanding tangible proof of his existance.