Rock God X wrote:You've never done anything other than defend the Church and its teachings. You're no more 'agnostic' than Kirkstaller.
I haven't defended anything. I simply know a lot about the church (in particular the Church of England) and know something of the other monotheistic religions also. I also happen to agree that by granting gay people marriage, it is changing the meaning of marriage in this country as has been understood and legally recognised for centuries. And I'm not backing that assertion up with evidence again as I have already presented evidence to back that up.
Quote:Are you seriously trying to suggest that Christians don't believe that The Bible is the 'word of God'? Seriously?
I didn't say that at all. I said there were two interpretations of 'the word of God': the Bible as an inspired text and Jesus. That is what I said before, that is what I have said now.
Quote:"As we know, the Sacred Scriptures are the written testimony of the divine word..."
"Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit."
Beautiful. In what way does that contradict what I said?
Quote: Human beings have been around for 200,000 years or so, so the fact that a particular religion controlled marriage in this country for 700 years or so does not mean they 'own' it.
It does if it is that version of the ceremony that is being changed, which it is.
Quote:Civil marriage, by your own admission, has existed since 1836, so the church has had no 'ownership' of those marriages for nearly 200 years.
Upon what do you think the civil marriage was based? For example, when did it become culturally acceptable for children to be born 'outside of wedlock' as the old-fashioned saying went?
