ARmy Rumour SErvice

**St Walter of Mitty** · 24-05-2012, 04:00

Originally Posted by count_duckula

No: civil partnerships give the same legal rights as marriage, and I think CMD and Obama's attempts to court the gay vote are mendacious and meretricious. Obama's got an election and CMD's got nothing useful to say, as has been for the entirety of his period in government. Everything he's announced has been harmful (health and social care bill) or stupid (F-35, selling off Forestry Commission land).

I don't think it's necessary and is simply pissing a lot of people off for no real gain. Although the term is now very often used in non-religious ceremonies, it derives from a religious source and means one man and one woman. I honestly don't understand why it's an issue anyway, what's the advantage other than a change of semantics?

I'm off to carry on reading the dictionary, I've done aadvark-nincompoop so far.

I like the word mendatious, but I don't like it's meaning so I don't use it.

**arby** · 24-05-2012, 04:15

I'd like to close on the wise words of my old man; "What two consenting adults do inside the privacy of their own arse, is nobodies business except their own."

I might use that as my family motto.

**Hobo-Ken** · 24-05-2012, 04:18

Originally Posted by St Walter of Mitty

I like the word mendatious, but I don't like it's meaning so I don't use it.

And you can't spell it anyway.

**StickyEnd** · 24-05-2012, 04:45

Originally Posted by CaptainPlume

Again you have failed to read or understand what I have written, despite Koschei's rather good precis.

I have not tried to say my belief is true (or better than anyone else's, or tried to proselytise), I merely said that unlike the so-called European Pagan religions, there is evidence for what all the others believe in from the founders of those religions, why, & how they chose to practise. If you are too stupid to understand this not very subtle distinction then I suggest you start throwing in the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" diversion as that appears to be about your intellectual level.

Then I don't think you understand either what constitutes evidence or the point of the flying spaghetti monster.

**BuggerAll** · 24-05-2012, 07:35

Originally Posted by Grey_Mafia65

It amazes me how atheists decry Christians for trying to force religion down people's throats, but have no problem in trying to force Christians (other faiths are available, in various colours) to turn their back on their beliefs.

Sticky, why does it offend you so much that someone might believe in something you don't?

What other people believe in is their own business, just as what consenting adults get up to is their own business.

The problem with religion is that most of us are victims of abusive attempts to brainwash us as children. It is therefore quite personal.

**Markintime** · 24-05-2012, 07:42

Originally Posted by Monty417

Esesaurus?

I'm afraid that went straight over my head, even Googled it and got nowt.

Confused of Cottingham

**Steven** · 24-05-2012, 07:45

Originally Posted by Legs

What I don't get is why some Hetro folk feel that there is a problem with Gay Marriage. How is it going to hurt them?

Gay couples can already have Civil Partnerships. Many of you have already said that that is the same as a marriage. Well yes, in law it may be, but there is more to a marriage than the law. My partner and I have been together 20 years. She has put up with far more than most wives, but still we are deeply in love. Yes, both of us. So why should we just have to accept what is seen as a Legal Contract similar to a business deal? Love is not a damn business deal! We love each other, we want to be a couple for the rest of our lives - just like a married hetro couple. Why can we not be afforded the same dignity?

You aren't being denied anything, you have exactly the same right to be a couple of the rest of your lives - same as everyone else.

**Markintime** · 24-05-2012, 07:51

Originally Posted by StickyEnd

I think you need to argue against a point, not a made up strawman. Tell me, what is the difference between substance and veracity, why does a belief have more substance because it is older?

Substance is foundation, more that can be referenced, roots that can be traced, provenance if you like. It is documented and recorded as are it's aims and its rituals and services. The frame is more fleshed out. The older and more well documented something is then the more substance it has. It does not mean that it is more, or less, believable just that there is more to trace and to judge by. Veracity refers to the truth of something. Capt Plume merely pointed out that Paganism as we generally know it is a modern concoct that has more to do with a wife swapping party than a religion. It is not documented back over a number of years and has no defined history. It has no Bible and no manual, no buildings, no statesmen, in short it has no substance.
As to whether it's any more believable, well that is up to the beholder. If you don't believe in a deity then you would find Paganism no more believable than Christianity although possible a little more fun.

**StickyEnd** · 24-05-2012, 08:13

Originally Posted by Markintime

Substance is foundation, more that can be referenced, roots that can be traced, provenance if you like. It is documented and recorded as are it's aims and its rituals and services. The frame is more fleshed out. The older and more well documented something is then the more substance it has. It does not mean that it is more, or less, believable just that there is more to trace and to judge by. Veracity refers to the truth of something. Capt Plume merely pointed out that Paganism as we generally know it is a modern concoct that has more to do with a wife swapping party than a religion. It is not documented back over a number of years and has no defined history. It has no Bible and no manual, no buildings, no statesmen, in short it has no substance.
As to whether it's any more believable, well that is up to the beholder. If you don't believe in a deity then you would find Paganism no more believable than Christianity although possible a little more fun.

Nice. Look at what he actually said and how I replied.

Originally Posted by CatainPlume

Originally Posted by StickyEnd

I'm inclined to believe that my religion (CofE) has a little more substance to it than something which was essentially codified as late as the 1930s.

Your religion has more substance because it is older? Riiiiight, so a flat Earth has more substance that a near spherical one. Disease is spread by spirits, not germs. The Sun goes around the Earth. Well done with that logic.

Now argue against what I wrote, not something I didn't.

BTW, a wife swapping party does sound more fun than a mass.

**Markintime** · 24-05-2012, 08:16

Originally Posted by StickyEnd

And every one of them has the same amount of evidence for their accuracy. ie; None.

Now here's a thing. No matter how long a belief has been held, it adds nothing to it's substance. Only evidence does that. Got any?

As I've already said earlier if you believe the Bible then you have all the evidence you need. Christ is recognised by Muslim, Jew, Non-Christian Roman and Christians so it is safe to say he existed. The bible is made up of witness statements. It could be argued that it is you who refuses to accept the evidence.

However, as I also said before, belief often defies logic or evidence. I believe that England is the finest country on the planet. There is plenty of evidence to suggest it's not. Many believe that Liverpool is the best football club ever yet they have hardly won a trophy this season. Many believe that the SLR was the finest military rifle ever yet the Lee Enfield was more accurate. Belief doesn't have to be scientifically based or even based in fact. I believe that there are other intelligent beings on planets we know nothing about. I have no proof of that but logic tells me that there is a possibility.

I look at religion (all religion) and I ask the basic question, does it set out to do harm or does it set out to organise humanity and guide them by a set of rules designed to bring about social harmony? Whether followers of religions cause harm is neither here nor there, what does the religion set out to do? Bring in an all-powerful deity and a reward scheme for compliance and you then keep your followers motivated and adherent. Over time Christianity and in particular the Church of England has become entrenched in our law, not least because high churchmen have been advisers to the monarch and have voted in the HoL. Whether you obey the law or not most would conclude that it is based on a sound set of principles of live and let live and as GM said, do unto others as you would be done to.