The coming of Jesus (the word made flesh) is such a pivotal event in the history of the world we wrapped time around it by general consensus without much objection.
That’s not quite true. Historically, the countries that we both come from (I assume) were Christian. Due to this, our timeline is based on Christianity, but this isn’t a universal thing. The Chinese have their own timeline, as do the Muslims and possibly the Jews. Our use of AD and BC is a cultural thing, nothing more.
There is a push to call before Christ “before common time”. That in itself is hypocritical. What is common about 0 A.D. If they were going to change the time scheme they why not call 0the discovery of penicillin, gun powder, or the combustion engine. Those things are truly common.
I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make. I don’t have a problem with the terms AD or BC - in fact, I like them. I don’t really understand the ‘Before Common Era’ thing, but I also don’t see what the point you’re trying to make is.
We have not drunk the cool aid. We are the most valid religion on the planet in that our God became man a dwelt among us and told us what he thought. This is verifiably true.
Show me, then. If it is verifiable, then verify it for me. I don’t disbelieve in a god for the fun of it. I am sincere in my disbelief, and I do so because I am genuinely unconvinced of the existence of God (or any gods), not for any other reasons.
the fact the you persist in your unbelief so you can live as you please is beside the point.
See above. I clearly don’t disbelieve in a god just to “live as I want”. I still have limits.
more to the point everyone else’s God is our God (there is only one) they just lack the fullness of the truth. By omission, perspective, or totality in some cases. On top of that you have a faith. It is obvious in the face of so much scientific information that validates the Christian position do the detriment of the atheist position.
Show me this scientific information, then. So far, you’re just all talk.
Ask the head of NASA when he verified the primordial molecule theory (now called the big bag) which was formulated by a priest, which is why it was mocked.
So what? How is this evidence of God? I don’t really care if it was ‘formulated’ by a priest. Good for him. I have nothing against Christians. I’m not a bigot. I just don’t believe the same things as you.
There is no getting away from the fact the God becoming man changed the game. Nor can you credibly say that he was not a real person who really existed. If you wish to say he was not God that’s your issue, but you cannot otherwise explain what he did or how he lived or how he was raised form the dead.
No, but I can claim that he wasn’t raised from the dead, that he didn’t do a lot of the things claimed in the Bible, and that he may not have even existed. Keep in mind that I have read a lot of non-Biblical sources on Christ, though. I do have issues with some of them, though. Jesus certainly isn’t the most historically verifiable character in history.
For the record God himself invented marriage. He gave it to the first man “flesh of my flesh blood of my blood”. Don’t believe that fine, but when he came as God and man he perfected the law of marriage. It is now (in the light of Christ, which should have been my original argument all along thanks to the other poster for the mild correction) a profoundly religious idea (even more so than it was). It is the coming of Christ that brought the Old testament into sharp focus.
As far as both I and our understanding of history is concerned, I don’t think you’re right.
To state it plain you are wrong to say we can be ignored simply because we hold a different point of view given to us by the divine.
That’s not what I said. I said purely religious arguments can be ignored.
We are looking at it from your perspective and we can see the damage to the individuals who engage in SSM to there friends and family, to there kids, and by extension to society at large. Deny there is damage if you wish. they did that before the approval of contraception, abortion, and no fault divorce. But the damage done by these ideas is plain to see from here why can you sit there and proclaim that further taking marriage away from its Judaeo-Christian roots would fix the problem? That is not a logical argument. You can’t keep doing what you are doing and expect a different outcome.
As I’ve stated before, there is little to suggest that marriage is of Judeo-Christian origins and there is much more to suggest otherwise. Also, you’ve got to back your claims up with something. It’s not hard. Honestly, there are much, much better arguments against same-sex marriage than this. I think.
