Former lesbian pair argue over parental rights

science claims to be the end all of everything. How many history books tell everything that happened or lead up to an event. If every single second was recorded, we wouldn't be able to pick up a Bible. And there is a lot of archilogical evidence, and documents from non christians in those times that tell of the happenings in the Bible, not every single one of them, but enough to prove that the Bible is factual and accurate. This is why it is of no use discussing things with you. You say I am wrong because I believe, but you are right because of whatever reason. And the other things are not different at all, The constitution is "interrupted" in so many different ways from what it really says. Like the separation of church and state. Literally it means that the government can't tell you what church to belong to, and that the church can not work for the government. Now it is not explained in full detail as to why, but in those days, the government chose the religion of their people and the priests spied on the people for the government.

Scientific theories are based on facts and scientific laws and science has never claim to be infallible.

The Bible is based on oral stories handed down from generation to generation until someone finally wrote it down, hundreds and even thousands of years later. We all know what happens when a person whispers into another's ear and they pass this information on to 20 others. By the time it gets to the last person, the original information is completely lost.

Next, there is no proof to most stories in the Bible. For instance, King Harrod, if he had all those children killed, wouldn't Josephus or someone like him write about it.

Nowhere in history does it say that Caesar Augustus issued a decree for a census. No one was made to travel back to their place of birth. This was only added so that Jesus' birth could be made to fit the prophecy.

well Pappy,

Then I guess you don't believe anything at all, especially not scientific theories and such as they contain lots of probably and maybe, and we think, etc. And your example of the robbery scenario is exactly why "eye-witness" accounts are unreliable in courts these days. People react differently to different stimuli. Now granted we may both describe the person differently, and we may describe how he robbed the store differently, but it does not change the fact that the store was robbed. No one has said that God wrote the Bible, he didn't tell the writers what to write. The Bible is God-breathed, or God inspired. As for the slight differences in the details, imagine the difference in time with no written accounts, no newspapers and such, just the story handed down by word of mouth over the years. Some of the details may get skewed, but the fact remains the same.

What does the constitution say about separation of church and state, if you read it and take it literally, not add any assumptions into it. For that matter, the whole constitution.

I guess I do strongly disagree with with the use of words like "probably" and "may" when explaining how wrong I am.

I also have troubles with "different but equally true details". If you described a robber as the tall black man and I described the robber as a short white man, but the rest of our stories match, then there is a big problem. The cops know that money was stolen and they know when, because our stories matched, but they do not know who to look for because our stories differ. Now the one account has Judas buying the land and the other has the high priests buying the land, this makes one of the account wrong. To have any sort of real and honest discussion on the subject, you cannot add or subtract words and meanings to suit your belief. And when you are talking as though god is prefect and his word is perfect, then you cannot use word like "probably" and "may".

and you didn't show anything about it being in error. As far as me saying the discussion is over, is because of your attitude, which is you are right and I'm full ofdouble talk, or someone elses doubletalk. So there is no rational discussion with you. sorry.

brpster with a "degree in Biblical studies", I would think you could answer my questions with ease.

"The Bible is the inerrant word of God." Nope, it is full of errors. When god spoke to the writer(s) of Matthew, which of course was not Matthew, and then god spoke to the writer(s)of Acts, did he, god, forget who bought the field????

"but they are in agreement." Nope and I showed where they DO NOT agree.

Sorry, I know 'christians' and god hate to be questioned, but if there is a god and he made me, then he made me the way I am! A Doubting Thomas!

I have read my Bible, and as a matter of fact have a degree in Biblical studies, which is why I used "study" material for my response to you. The Bible is the inerrant word of God. Each book was written at different times, by different people, but they are in agreement. So, this discussion with you is finished.

I do realize why it took you so long to answer and why you could not use your own words. "The two accounts preserve different but equally true" is pure. It is nothing but double talk.

There are so many inconsistencies in the bible that I could spend the rest of my life pointing them out to you, but I wont. Mainly because I do not want to hear someone else's double talk. And also, if you have not read the bible then your god will get you for it.

Oh, just one more. Read these two chapters2 Kings 19 & Isaiah 37. Not just the single verse, but the whole chapter. Then tell me the bible is the literal and inerrant word of God.

"The account of Judas' faith is not inconsistent with that sort forth by Matthew. The field was probably bought by the legally-minded prists in Judas' name. Amid the crazed inconsistencies of despair he may have laid claim to it in consequence, and in bitter irony made it the scene of suicide. The two accounts preserve different but equally true details from the rest of the shocking story, and the field won its sombre name on more than one count." (E.M. Blaiklock, "Acts of the Apostles", p. 53)

But brpster, What does Acts say? Acts 1:18 Judas bought a field!!!

Matthew 27:5 Judas threw the money into the temple and left, then the priests bought the field & Acts 1:18 Judas bought a field and hanged himself.

That is just one of the many inconsistencies in the bible. Would you like to hear more?

Pappy, Judas took the 30 pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, and when they wouldn't take it, he threw the silver down in the temple and left. The chief priests took the silver to the potter's field.

brpster, Don't ignore the inconsistencies in the Bible, I cannot wait to hear your, or anyone else's, response!

Guess the pilot didn't like my first response to this one so I'll go again. First off, I agree with you about the man and dog question. Second, yes they all believe in the same God, but differently, Jewish still lives old testament, jesus was just a prophet, Christians follow the bible and Jesus is their saviour, and Muslims believe in God, Jesus was a prophet as was Muhhamd (sp) and they follow Muhhamds teachings. And third, (this is the part they must not have liked, so let me try it this way) You are correct, according to Christian beliefs as it says, Jesus did not do away with the old laws. He did away with the sacrifice and punishment phases. John 3:16 - 21.

"Pappy and CS, actually there are no inconsistencies in the Bible." says brpster

OK, here's an easy one for you. What did Judas do with the thirty silver pieces that he got for betraying Jesus?

That is correct, he did not come to wipe out the old laws, they still do exist, however, the punishment was replaced when Jesus came to give himself so that we would be saved. Therefore, the stoning and death and other punishments of the old testament are no longer valid, as one can regain favor with God through Jesus by accepting him and repenting of the sins they committed against God's law. And yes, I like everyone else on the planet am a sinner, and am only saved through the blood of Jesus.

chesschamp; that is the first time I heard this question. I may have missed it. The simple answer is; "No!" Why? Because people in America decided that a person cannot marry someone or something that cannot make the choice to be married. (i.e. an animal or a child) I foresee life like robots in our future and I believe someday some will want to marry them. If the AI is that advanced, then I say why not.

Godless America??? Wow, we have the Christians, the Jews and the Muslims, all who believe in the same god fighting and killing each other for thousands of years!!! How does some nut wanting to marry his dog compare to that?

brpster, didn't Jesus say that he did not come to wipe out the old laws? Matthew 5:17, so all the old laws are still on the books, right?

It's funny how none of the pro-gay marriage people who defend gay marriage as a personal choice have not responded to whether they would also support a man marrying his dog. Why not? What if he says he was born attracted to dogs. If America keeps traveling down the path toward a rejection of God, in ten years some state will allow man-dog marriage. I am not equating gay humans with animals. All people should be respected. I am simply asking whether the same sex marriage folk would support human-animal marriage. And if not, what is your reasoning?

Pappy and CS, actually there are no inconsistencies in the Bible. There is a division, old testament and new testament. Christians today, are for the most part New Testament Christians, which I am, which is why I stated, I don't like their lifestyles but I love them as humans. And CS, if you had read my earlier posts, you would have seen the post that says there are laws that say you can't discriminate, nor torture or that kind of stuff as there should be...so no I'm not a bigot. And I could care less wether or not they need or want my approval. My whole thing is, do not tell me that I have to accept their lifestyle because of the law, I don't. And at the same time, They don't want anyone telling them their lifestyle is wrong. So they want everyone to accept their lifestyle, and when you state your opinion (if it is against) then you are automatically called names, told you need to change your way of thinking. I have never told anyone that I know is gay that they have to change.

First of all, I didn't say "To subjugate a group of people to someone else's belief." Kindly quote me correctly if you're going to quote me. Second, you say "...we have to treat them fairly even though we don't believe it..." By your logic racism is perfectly acceptable. Why should someone treat blacks fairly if, in his heart of hearts, he believes blacks are inferior? You basically say it's OK to discriminate against gay people because you disagree with them. This makes you a bigot. You lecture us that we must follow all of the laws - we can't choose which ones to follow. You also assure us that you are aware of the laws on sodomy. So either you follow the laws on sodomy and have incredibly boring marital relations or you choose not to follow the sodomy laws and you are a hypocrite. None of this has anything to do with your beliefs - I'm not 'picking on you' or calling you names because you call yourself a Christian. I take issue with your holier-than-thou pronouncements and pontification. Just like you seem to pick and choose which laws to obey, you also seem selective about which of Jesus' teachings you follow.

brpster, for every yes you find in the bible, I can find a no. For every curse, there is a counter-curse. We can go back and forth all day with bible verses that state why you should hate and or kill people and I can quote just as many for why you should not hate and or kill people. That is why I find the bible so unbelievable.

No one cares that you dislike their lifestyle. You are free to like and dislike anything you wish. All I am saying is; you cannot and should not discriminate against them as you should not be discriminated against.

I do not hate christians at all, but I do like to make fun of them when they know nothing of the bible. If you read the bible and you don't see the inconsistencies, then I have to wonder if you have read it all. How can you sit here and complain about gays when Lot, one of god's chosen slept with his own daughters. Certainly gays are not as bad as that!?!?!

We all do agree that the laws state it is illegal, and yes Pappy I know the laws on sodomy. But I do find it interesting that CS says "To subjugate a group of people to someone else's belief " When saying we have to treat them fairly even though we don't believe it, is doing what? Isn't that the same thing? yes it is. Calling people schmucks for being Christian, how is that any different? It's not. You don't like Christians so you call them names and don't like their beliefs and pick on them, so that is no different than those that do pick on gays. If you had read my earlier posts, you would have read that I dislike their lifestyle, but being a christian I still love them as humans. And since you both quote the Bible to suit you... look up 1 Cor: 6:9 - 12, 1 Tim 1:10, Deut 29:23; 32:32, Is 1:9, 10; 3:9, Jer 23:14, 49:18, Lam 4:6, Ezek 16:46 - 63, Matt 11:23, 24, 2 Pet 2:6; Jude 7. And you will see why Christians dislike their lifestyle, but (true) Christians will still love them as humans.

I am not sure either, but I'll try. He says, "they don't want people to tell them they are going to hell." According to the bible, no one but god can tell someone they are going to hell, so that point is moot.
He says, "since they all want to tell me I have to accept them and I don't" That is not true, I don't think they care whether you accept them or not, you are not allowed to discriminate against them just because you don't approve of their lifestyle.
He says, "the laws are written in such a way as their lifestyle is not accepted morally or under the law" Yes there are many laws still on the books against 'sodomy' but you know, a lot of things god fearing christians do are considered sodomy in these laws as well. If you need, I can find a list of laws that you or your christian friends ignore because most no longer think of oral sex as sodomy, but there are laws saying that it is.

In my opinion, it's because the government doesn't look at these issues from a legality standpoint, it's looking at the issue through a religious standpoint; through the eyes of the Robertsons, the Falwells and the other shmucks like them. To subjugate a group of people to someone else's belief is essentially subjugating the nation to a theocracy, and I think we're well on our way down that path when we continue to impose religious superiority over our communities. To think we chide Iran because of their religious fanaticism...

That the law says it is wrong. Therefore illegal..therefore they are breaking the law. Or do you just want laws you like to be counted, or do you want pedophiles and murderers to be able to just walk the streets free and clear because its not fair to lock them up for breaking the laws, that are morally wrong and illegal?

I guess you're right. I do need to learn to read - "As far as the 14th amemendment [sic], it is clear, under the law, the laws are written in such a way as their lifestyle is not accepted morally or under the law, so how is that not fair?" I just read that sentence three times and I have no idea what you're trying to say.

First off, you both better learn to read, the statement I made was they don't want people to tell them they are going to hell. I never told them that, it was an example, since they all want to tell me I have to accept them and I don't, just like they don't want people to tell them things. So learn how to read. As far as the 14th amemendment, it is clear, under the law, the laws are written in such a way as their lifestyle is not accepted morally or under the law, so how is that not fair? Or is this a country where the laws don't matter, or you just pick and choose the ones you want to follow. So you both need to get over yourselves.

brpster, you keep complaining that “someone” changed the direction of the blog away from the original article to gay rights and such. And yet you had no problem jumping right in. As for the 14th Amendment, you’re correct. It doesn’t say “gays.” Neither does it say straight, white, black or anything other than “all.” As a previous poster put it, that seems pretty inclusive to me. They are not treated equally under the law, which extends certain rights only to family members. If, for example, one partner in a gay union gets hospitalized and is incapacitated, the other partner does not have the same legal rights or responsibilities as someone in a traditional marriage has. This also extends to retirement benefits and all sorts of other things. When you sanctimoniously tell someone they are going to hell, you are condescending. They aren’t looking for your approval in most cases – they just want you to mind your own business. I'd wonder what conduct I might engage in of which you disapprove but I really don't care (and I'm sure you'd tell me any way). Frankly, your intolerance embarrasses me as a straight man.

brpster, This is great, I never thought I would be talking to god almighty! You can tell people who is going to hell????

What about John 3:16 I missed the part where it says, "Unless you are gay."

What about, Matthew 7:1, "Judge not, that ye be not judged." You had better watch out, god will judge you far more harshly than you judge gays!

How about Luke 6:37 "Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven"

You are playing with fire, Sir!

In most states same-sex sex is against the law, so therefore, they do have equal protection under the laws. And there are laws against torturing them or hurting them, and they are protected by those laws, as they should be. And I am not condesending. Someone else turned this into this topic, again I state, the article is about which state has jursidiction in the custody case, period. But since someone else turned it into this topic and voiced their opinions, and I have voiced mine, I am the one that is wrong? Hmmm, gee, I thought this was a free country where everyone is allowed to think and believe as they choose to. The gay community wants everyone to accept them, but that is not the way of the world. They don't want people telling them they're going to hell or anything, but they want us to say its okay. That is wrong. So don't tell me I have to accept their lifestyle.

ALL persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

ALL seems pretty inclusive and equal protection seems pretty clear to me. It means homophobes and homosexuals share the same rights.

And believe when I tell you, they don't care what you believe. They don't require your approval or your condescending "Christianity." They simply want the same protections as everyone else.