@Nimrod

Quote:

The problem was that C4M chose to use pictures that they had no authorisation to use, to lend a false veneer of respectability to their campaign of misdirections, misrepresentations, and downright lies. This does not surprise me as it matches your own tendency to lie at every available opportunity.

I think the idea was to contact the MP so the picture was to help them to identify what their MP looked like! I'm sure pictures of MPs are available in the public domain I hardly see how that is dishonest!

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

@BigD

Quote:

Loads of vicars in the 17th century went into the priesthood just for a career rather than because they actually believed the Bible

Regardless of the cosy career structure of the late 17th century CofE, the question remains, do you follow the teachings of יהוה or does your christ follow your orders? Speaking as a non christian, I would prefer the cosy arrangements of the late 17th century onwards to the theofascism of the puritan regime of Cromwell in the early 17th century. You said earlier that his actions were justifiable, well if you truly believe that, go to any pub in Wexford or Limerick and make the same stupid, arrogant claim. You will deserve everything that happens to you.

In post #1878 you claimed a globally unique understanding of christianity because you were the worlds one true christian, but in order to find out what true christians are you first need to look at christianity from the viewpoint of one of its victims. Then you will understand what a true christian really looks like.

Quote:

I think the idea was to contact the MP so the picture was to help them to identify what their MP looked like!

Firstly I dispute the claim that you think at all, but assuming that you can, why should the MP be identified by a picture. If I want somebody to contact their MP I will give the address of the constituency office, or an e-mail address. The only reason I would give a picture of somebody in the context of "making a complaint" would be to identify the prospective target. Are C4M now instigating a campaign of harrassment, intimidation and assault? Or was the slightly less disreputable option of "lending a veneer of respectability to a campaign of lies" closer to the mark?

Last edited by Nimrod on 20-Jan-2013 at 12:53 AM.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@BigD

Quote:

So have you studied science for three years at university yourself then?

Ooooh, a snobbish attempt at trying to claim intelligence you don't have!

I'll point out that many contributers to this thread have various high level qualifications that they don't bring up because they don't need to try to affect the weight of their arguments by making elitist claims about their backgrounds in a pathetic attempt to make their claims seem more credible than they really are.

In a nutshell, you've made blatantly false claims about geology that anyone who actually comprehends the subject and understands more than you can get by cutting and pasting quotes from the internet can see you understand less about geology than James Hutton did over 200 years ago and he at least know the world must have been many millions of years old.

Somebody previously made a suggestion on this thread that you might have obtained your "qualification" some years past, before plate tectonics and the oceanic fracture zones were fully understood or perhaps even discovered (though they were predicted long before). I was considering that as a possibility right up to the point where you tried to argue with a cut & past job (remember? It was the one where you forgot to remove the abbreviation on a word only used once in your quote) and you were using an argument that made no sense in regard to what we were talking about. That's where I knew you lacked basic understanding of what the quote meant.

It was so irrelevant I'll give an example for those in this thread who don't pay attention to the subject, just how irrelevant it was.

Me. Cars run on petrol or gas
You. No they don't seat covers are designed to withstand heavy wear

It was really that bad.

Quote:

I am in a better position to comment on science and the Christian faith than you since I both have a science degree and am a Christian, two things you 'aint.

You are about as Christian as you are a scientist. In both cases you fall very short of the mark on basic comprehension. You've made pitiful basic errors in your explaining of both and you have proven yourself to be a liar on this thread many times over.

And unless you have a special version of the Bible that is only known to you and god, I have exactly the same source material as you and as I've mentioned I've read the entire thing 3 times and individual sections many times. From your posts, I seriously doubt you've read the whole thing. You seem to be missing quite significant bits. Like the bits about not telling lies.

This, were you scientifically minded, would come under the term "peer review". I get to see the same information you do. You make claims about the Bible that are demonstrably false or misleading as has been pointed out many times in this thread. How much you like something doesn't give you any more or less understanding than a neutral party. And I'll also point out that most of the people who also love the book along with you, disagree with your claims asto it's meaning.

In effect your post is the equivalent of a juvenile in a school playground claiming your daddy is bigger than my daddy.

Quote:

Back to the subject; Looks like MPs are getting upset at being forced to engage in the democratic process on this issue

That isn't the subject. The subject is wither the British public think 3.7 million pounds is an acceptable sum of taxpayers money to be spend on the legalisation of same sex marriage.

It's you that keeps changing the subject and when we counter your claims with evidence, you tell us off for not sticking to the subject and then you revert back to a subject you'd previously dropped (which is still not related to the topic of the thread) for the same reasons, with some bizarre idea that you are onto a winner this time.

The cycle repeats.

Last edited by SpaceDruid on 20-Jan-2013 at 01:14 AM.

_________________
"Anyone with a modicum of reasonableness may realize that it is like comparing the ride in the world to descend the stairs to catch the milk in the house."

Google Translate

@BigD

Quote:

BigD wrote: @Thread Hopefully, we'll have one of these protests here. Maybe then you'll all understand the level of opposition to this redefinition; BBC News: Mass Paris Rally Against Same-Sex Marriage

I don't care about the level of opposition from bigots. I care about what is right being done.

Last edited by fairlanefastback on 20-Jan-2013 at 01:56 AM.

_________________
Pegasos2 G3 running AOS 4.1 and MorphOS 2.0
Amikit user, tinkering with Icaros VM (AROS)
EFIKA owner
Amiga 1200

@BigD

Quote:

Since when has defending marriage been offensive.

You don't defend marriage. Bigotry has always been offensive.

_________________
Pegasos2 G3 running AOS 4.1 and MorphOS 2.0
Amikit user, tinkering with Icaros VM (AROS)
EFIKA owner
Amiga 1200

@SpaceDruid

Quote:

You are about as Christian as you are a scientist. In both cases you fall very short of the mark on basic comprehension.

From the view of somebody who is neither a christian nor a scientist (and definitely not a christian scientist) I learned more about geology from reading this post and this post from T-J than BigD appears to have ever learned on the subject. Having read these comments I didn't actually need the confimation that T-J gave a few pages back that he has a degree in geology, it was sort of obvious. Incidentally, just before one of these posts by T-J, I posted the following "ten commandments of evidence"Quote:

1. Base your conclusions on the evidence. Not vice versa. 2. Measure objectively, not guess selectively. 3. Back up statements with evidence. Claiming something to be a fact does not make it a fact. 4. Use large sample numbers for statistical analysis. 5. Use blind sampling for tests 6. Tests must include control groups. 7. Cite your sources of information. 8. Sources must be reliable, verifiable, and backed with evidence. 9. Opinion is not fact 10. No false evidence.(don't cheat)

Even though this thread is not a debate about science I note that BigD is as lax in his observation of the commandments listed above as he is the originals. (And I wouldn't put it past him to ignore number 5 of the originals, and justify it because we are heretics)

Quote:

Somebody previously made a suggestion on this thread that you might have obtained your "qualification" some years past, before plate tectonics and the oceanic fracture zones were fully understood or perhaps even discovered (though they were predicted long before).

If you are referring to a comment that I once made, I implied that BigD's georaphical knowledge would be valid if his qualification predated Hutton, which is not really likely since it was Hutton that started the whole ball rolling for geology. It would also make BigD a bit past his sell by date.

Last edited by Nimrod on 20-Jan-2013 at 02:24 PM.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@Nimrod

Quote:

If you are referring to a comment that I once made, I implied that BigD's georaphical knowledge would be valid if his qualification predated Hutton, which is not really likely since it was Hutton that started the whole ball rolling for geology. It would also make BigD a bit past his sell by date.

No, I think it might have been T-J as the person identified themselves as having a degree. I'm so sick of having to retrace previous parts of this thread in order to bring them up yet again to counter D's repetition that I now avoid it at all costs. I'd rather read the Bible again.

However your point is equally valid. As is often the case, rival theories existed with opposing ideas of how the same results could be achieved. It's possible then that BigD was taught by Abraham Gottlob Werner* and hasn't updated his notes since.




*He proposed the land was created in a series of floods

Last edited by SpaceDruid on 20-Jan-2013 at 03:50 PM.

_________________
"Anyone with a modicum of reasonableness may realize that it is like comparing the ride in the world to descend the stairs to catch the milk in the house."

Google Translate

@fairlanefastback

Quote:

I don't care about the level of opposition from bigots. I care about what is right being done.

So now you try to equate defending marriage with bigotry again! Where have you been for the last 6 months. The debate has moved on and people that called pro-marriage campaigners that have had to shut up and concede that this is a valid position (even Nick Clegg had to re-draft his 'bigotry' accusing speech ).

Isn't about time you too came down off your high horse and conceded that people who believe that marriage is and always should be the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, are entitled to their opinion?

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

@BigD

Quote:

So now you try to equate defending marriage with bigotry again!

You and your cohorts have yet to state (without resorting to fear mongering) what you are defending marriage from!

Quote:

Isn't about time you too came down off your high horse

Oh that's rich. That's rich from coming from you. The only person on this thread that qualifies for that assessment is you. No one else is claiming ownership of the concept of marriage.

Quote:

and conceded that people who believe that marriage is and always should be the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, are entitled to their opinion?

Concede? Opinion? You've gone WAAAAAAAAAY beyond claiming it to be an opinion. You've claimed you represent the masses and that anyone that doesn't agree with you to be responsible for the destruction of society and without morality.

And you've YET to explain why you no longer follow the Bible's teachings on the role of women, but still chose to do so on the subject of homosexuality.

You like to quote Corinthians, but it is made clear in 11:2-16 that..
"If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head."

That's pretty clear in it's intent isn't it? Does your wife sing in church?

14:34 "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law."

Please explain why you have not yet stoned your wife to death (or at LEAST shaved her head) as your God commands for her flagrant disregard to abide by her second class status but still wish to impose your will against gay people despite the instructions being pretty vague? Is it perhaps because you are a homophobic hiding behind religion and are applying different standards to them than you are your wife?

_________________
"Anyone with a modicum of reasonableness may realize that it is like comparing the ride in the world to descend the stairs to catch the milk in the house."

Google Translate

@SpaceDruid

Quote:

Is it perhaps because you are a homophobic hiding behind religion and are applying different standards to them than you are your wife?

Again it needs pointing out to you that I have no hate or malice against practising homosexuals. This is simply about protecting marriage from the dangerous proposal to redefine marriage which will render a valued institution all but irrelevant.

You try and muddy the waters with your half-arsed attempt at interpreting the Bible when you couldn't give two figs about it. I will not be driven into a argument about the Bible with you on an unrelated topic.

Last edited by BigD on 21-Jan-2013 at 01:44 AM.
Last edited by BigD on 21-Jan-2013 at 01:43 AM.

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

@BigD

Quote:

You try and muddy the waters with your half-arsed attempt at interpreting the Bible when you couldn't give two figs about it.

"muddy the waters"

As I said before " Then you repeat the claim, this time using words the person who replied to your earlier post used, then you try to argue against that person as if it was you that came up with the idea."

My posts #1821 and #1867 were the first and only in this thread to include the words "muddy the waters"

Even Jesus is facepalming at this moment.

One day D, you will come up with an original idea of your own. That day is not today.

It really doesn't matter wither I give a fig about the Bible or not. The words I quoted are the words in the Bible. I simply copied the words from the same book you claim to hold dear and have made several references to and I made no interpretation beyond the face value of the words.

If you are claiming these words can have meanings beyond the simple words that they are written in, please suggest them. I can see no meaning other what they say. If you have mystical knowledge beyond my simple mind, then please enlighten me with the meaning of them so I might share your enlightenment.

Quote:

I will not be driven into a argument about the Bible with you on an unrelated topic.

Oh but it is related.

Your entire argument on this thread is based on the Bible, but you are not applying the same rules to all aspects of your own life, nor society as a whole.

You quoted Corinthians to try to make a point. All I did was quote from the same book. If you are saying my quote is not valid, then neither is yours.

Last edited by SpaceDruid on 21-Jan-2013 at 12:23 PM.
Last edited by SpaceDruid on 21-Jan-2013 at 03:36 AM.
Last edited by SpaceDruid on 21-Jan-2013 at 03:23 AM.
Last edited by SpaceDruid on 21-Jan-2013 at 03:22 AM.

_________________
"Anyone with a modicum of reasonableness may realize that it is like comparing the ride in the world to descend the stairs to catch the milk in the house."

Google Translate

@BigD

Quote:

BigD wrote: @fairlanefastback Where have you been for the last 6 months.

Not on this board.

Quote:

Isn't about time you too came down off your high horse and conceded that people who believe that marriage is and always should be the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, are entitled to their opinion?

You are entitled to your opinion yes. That does not mean its not a bigoted opinion though. We aren't talking about a religious definition here. We are talking about equal rights and treatment from a civil government.

Last edited by fairlanefastback on 21-Jan-2013 at 03:36 AM.

_________________
Pegasos2 G3 running AOS 4.1 and MorphOS 2.0
Amikit user, tinkering with Icaros VM (AROS)
EFIKA owner
Amiga 1200

@SpaceDruid

Quote:

SpaceDruid wrote: @BigD And you've YET to explain why you no longer follow the Bible's teachings on the role of women, but still chose to do so on the subject of homosexuality.

Thats because he can't.

_________________
Pegasos2 G3 running AOS 4.1 and MorphOS 2.0
Amikit user, tinkering with Icaros VM (AROS)
EFIKA owner
Amiga 1200

@BigD

You've famously claimed there's no 'gay' in our DNA.

I think this exemplifies that we humans know far less about our DNA structure, let alone function, than you think we do. Quadruple Helix DNA found in humans

Just seen on the news that president Obama has announced his support for gays marriage and equality in his inauguration speech.

_________________
My personal blog - CritAnime.com

Admin at Commodore Gaming Wiki

@BigD

Quote:

Isn't about time you too came down off your high horse and conceded that people who believe that marriage is and always should be the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others,

If you have a sincere wish to remain married to the same woman for the entirety of your adult life then I for one will applaud your effort, and will certainly do nothing to impede you from acheiving your goal. Should anybody seek to force you to divorce your wife, contrary to both your wishes, I for one would consider that to be an unwarranted intrusion into the sanctity of your marriage.
Since you demand that marriage has to be for life, do you consider that killing a spouse who has become surplus to requirement is a valid alternative to the modern concept of divorce?

You keep claiming that you are the one defender of global morality and the sanctity of marriage, but what are you defending it from? It is not a wave of immorality arising from people being permitted to be non christians because it can be shown that non christians are not the immoral brutish degenerates that you always seek to portray them as, In fact the incidences of teenage pregnancy, abortion and infidelity are frequently higher in theocratic systems.

You claim that only one or two couples will take advantage of this change in the law, and that these few people will render your marriage to your wife invalid. Have you any idea how silly that sounds, and how shallow it makes you appear if you will have no alternative than to kill your wife (divorce is not an option in a marriage for life) because somebody you never met doesn't have to leap through bureaucratic hoops any more to change their name, because they are treated as equals.

Quote:

This is simply about protecting marriage from the dangerous proposal to redefine marriage which will render a valued institution all but irrelevant.

Is your marriage, and your relationship with your wife really so shallow, meaningless, and trivial, that it will collapse because a couple that you will never meet got a piece of paper allowing one of them to change their name quickly and easily.

This legislation will not threaten the concept of marriage in any way, and your scaremongering stories have all been exposed as a tissue of lies.

Quote:

You try and muddy the waters with your half-arsed attempt at interpreting the Bible

SpaceDruid interpreted nothing What he did was that he quoted sections from the bible in exactly the same way that you frequently do. The difference is that he left it at that, where you interpret what you have quoted to mean BigD is the holiest person ever, and everybody else including יהוה is "not a real christian"

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@thread

This is one hell of a long thread which I have avoided. I've only read about half of this page and will most likely not read much more.

I am a firm believer of traditional marriage. I also don't believe in divorce, but I know it has a place in society. I am quite a spiritual man, although I will not attend any church. I believe that everyone has a right to happiness without causing harm to others.

Just adding my 2 cents even if no one asked for it.

_________________
Moxee
AmigaOne X1000
AmigaOne XE G4
I'd agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong.

@Moxee

The actual debate started about a 3.5 million gbp figure to bring in gay marriage. This spiralled out into what you see here. Please don't take half a page as the sum of the entire debate. It goes a lot further back and there has been some wild accusations. Been a bit of a roller coaster.

Last edited by CritAnime on 22-Jan-2013 at 10:21 AM.

_________________
My personal blog - CritAnime.com

Admin at Commodore Gaming Wiki

@CritAnime

Quote:

The actual debate started about a 3.5 million gbp figure to bring in gay marriage. This spiralled out into what you see here. Please don't take half a page as the sum of the entire debate. It goes a lot further back and there has been some wild accusations. Been a bit of a roller coaster.

Oh I believe you. One reason this is in Free For All I guess.

The state which I live in (Washington State) approved same sex marriage by vote of the people last November 2012. So far I don't see any damage to traditional marriage, but I still understand how BigD feels.

In the same election the people in this state also approved the legal use of marijuana. Good Lord, where are we headed? More liberties for everyone it looks like. They are already having bring your own marijuana parties at bars. Here have a toke. Reminds me of that old 1971 Brewer & Shipley song, One toke over the line, sweet Jesus.

Some people say that one chooses to be gay and can be "brain washed" into changing. I don't believe that. As far as I know we are born the way we are and we all have to come to terms with that.

FOOT NOTE
"One Toke Over The Line" was a Top 10 hit in 1971, and was largely responsible for introducing Brewer & Shipley to the masses. While it is a wonderful and uplifting song, "One Toke" landed Brewer & Shipley on Nixon's Enemies List and was banned by the FCC. But that didn't stop Lawrence Welk from featuring "One Toke Over The Line" on his show. Welk even called the song a modern spiritual. Several artists recorded the song in 1971, apparently thinking it was a gospel song. Check out these stories and even a video of the legendary Lawrence Welk cover. As Michael & Tom like to say, you couldn't make this stuff up.

_________________
Moxee
AmigaOne X1000
AmigaOne XE G4
I'd agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong.

@thread

This thread was going strong until I posted a couple of days ago. Don't let me be the Thread Kiss of Death once again. Please carry on.

_________________
Moxee
AmigaOne X1000
AmigaOne XE G4
I'd agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong.