Oregon judge orders recognition of Gay marriages...

miir · Post by **miir** » April 25, 2004, 3:32 am

This thread is getting really fucking creepy now

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » April 25, 2004, 3:45 am

I think we're one hallelujah away from seeing Adex thumping a bible on a street corner to random passers by.

Truant · Post by **Truant** » April 25, 2004, 11:05 am

I hope that they next ban marriage for anyone who isn't a documented Christian. Because anyone who isn't a god fearing christian obviously doesn't respect the covenant that is marriage, and would defile it.

Go Jesus!

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » April 25, 2004, 11:58 am

Neroon wrote:Isn't "confirmed faith" an oxymoron?

Very much so.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » April 25, 2004, 2:23 pm

Neroon wrote:Isn't "confirmed faith" an oxymoron?

Faith is kinda like relying on somebody to take care of something that is impacting you. When they do take care of it your faith is confirmed in that person.

If again and again you place your faith in God and again and again he delivers, you develop a quiet confidence in him and experience confirmation.

Winnow wrote:I think we're one hallelujah away from seeing Adex thumping a bible on a street corner to random passers by.

Someone asked me a bible question Winnow, I'm just trying to answer it.

Traz-KOE · Post by **Traz-KOE** » April 25, 2004, 2:58 pm

After Jesus provided the ultimate sacrifice for all sin. Old laws that were performed to cover sin were no longer necessary. Jesus took care of it.

Except for those faggots, of course...Jesus doesn't give two shits about their sins.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » April 25, 2004, 3:19 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:I simply propose a method that might stand a chance in the legislative process.

I actually understand where you are coming from here so if it needs to be adopted as only a civil union solely because too many christians get hung up on semantics, I'm willing to agree because their current situation is absolute bias in it's current state. However, I think it's still ridiculous this is the makeup of this country.

Go Jesus!

Forget the rest, he's the best!

murr · Post by **murr** » April 25, 2004, 3:41 pm

And Jesus said unto his apostles,
"Thou shalt love thy brother, but not in the anus, for that is sinful."

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » April 25, 2004, 4:12 pm

murr durr wrote:And Jesus said unto his apostles,
"Thou shalt love thy brother, but not in the anus, for that is sinful."

And stinky too.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » April 25, 2004, 4:17 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
murr durr wrote:And Jesus said unto his apostles,
"Thou shalt love thy brother, but not in the anus, for that is sinful."
And stinky too.

It doesn't have to be!

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » April 25, 2004, 10:36 pm

Traz-KOE wrote:
After Jesus provided the ultimate sacrifice for all sin. Old laws that were performed to cover sin were no longer necessary. Jesus took care of it.
Except for those faggots, of course...Jesus doesn't give two shits about their sins.

Jesus took the punishment for all sin. His offer to endure God's punishment in your place is available to everyone regardless of their circumstances or failings.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » April 25, 2004, 11:02 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:
Jesus took the punishment for all sin. His offer to endure God's punishment in your place is available to everyone regardless of their circumstances or failings.

They're only "failings" if you're a blind follower of a made up story. Your religious failings are acceptable to the free thinking atheist community as long as they don't interfere with progress or anyone's public life but we don't have to endure God's punishment. We merely have to endure listening to you in a forum that both sides choose to be.

Equal rights for all consenting adults, not just the close minded ones.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » April 25, 2004, 11:09 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:
Traz-KOE wrote:
After Jesus provided the ultimate sacrifice for all sin. Old laws that were performed to cover sin were no longer necessary. Jesus took care of it.
Except for those faggots, of course...Jesus doesn't give two shits about their sins.
Jesus took the punishment for all sin. His offer to endure God's punishment in your place is available to everyone regardless of their circumstances or failings.

if god could do anything, then he wouldnt have to sacrifice his son on earth, he could just admit everyone into heaven

...and if you honestly believe taht, why do you also believe in hell?

The concept of an eternal hell for a few earthly mistakes is beyond fucked up

Mplor · Post by **Mplor** » April 26, 2004, 5:26 am

Gotta say I admire Adex for his contributions to this thread.

While I disagree with his position here, I'm glad nobody's succeeded in shouting him down. This forum would be pretty useless without people willing to coherently argue the minority position.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » April 26, 2004, 11:47 am

Adex wrote:Keep in mind when this law was given...

..and, you're done. You're just f'ing done. You've admitted wholesale that biblical "laws" have a f'ing use by date, and you're done.

There's no more to say, there's no "but", you're done. STFU.

Toshira · Post by **Toshira** » April 28, 2004, 5:32 am

Adex_Xeda wrote: Jesus took the punishment for all sin. His offer to endure God's punishment in your place is available to everyone regardless of their circumstances or failings.

In the words of Patty Smyth:

"Jesus died for somebody's sins, but not mine..."

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » April 28, 2004, 1:57 pm

Toshira wrote:
Adex_Xeda wrote: Jesus took the punishment for all sin. His offer to endure God's punishment in your place is available to everyone regardless of their circumstances or failings.
In the words of Patty Smyth:

"Jesus died for somebody's sins, but not mine..."

More important than this jesus stuff, Patty Smyth was considered as David Lee Roth's replacement as lead singer for Van Halen back when he originally got the boot.

Van Smyth > Van Hagar

Toshira · Post by **Toshira** » April 28, 2004, 2:02 pm

considered by whom? VH maybe, not Pat!

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » April 28, 2004, 2:40 pm

Toshira wrote:considered by whom? VH maybe, not Pat!

Rumours had run rife through most of 1985 that the band were working with SAMMY HAGAR. Everything was made official when the 'Red Rocker' made his recording debut in VAN HALEN on the Donn Landee and Mick Jones co-produced '5150' album in March 1986 and the album was greeted with a wave of enthusiasm in the United States as the first single, 'Why Can't This Be Love?', peaked at number 3.

Interestingly, things might have been rather different had SCANDAL singer Patty Smyth accepted Eddie Van Halen's offer to her to join the band to fill the void left by Roth. Smyth declined as she was fully committed to becoming a solo artist and was also eight months pregnant at the time.

Reportedly, Hagar had been in the frame for the frontman's job back in 1977 when the Van Halen brothers had been seduced to the point of ditching David Lee Roth and hire a vocalist of Hagar's ability. However, contractual difficulties would appear to have got in the way.

I think Patty would have been a better lead singer than Sammy.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » April 28, 2004, 2:43 pm

i thought Van Halen's last album was 1984?

what is this 5150 you speak of?

Toshira · Post by **Toshira** » April 28, 2004, 4:48 pm

Exactlah...Patti would do no such thing!