Suseonline,

I suspect Is Mise is just being obtuse now.

You’re right. Jesus was God. He was his own father and his own son at the same time. He sacrificed himself to himself to save us from what he was going to do to us because of his own problems.

The trinity is a ridiculous notion invented to distinguish Christianity from polytheism at a time when polytheism was unpopular.

This Thomas Jefferson quote I think sums up the absurdity of the trinity best:

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus."

AJPhillips, you are right of course, but at least Is Mise has a sense of humour with his views, whereas Josephus needs to lighten up.

With all my school years listening to the Nuns drone on about the holy trinity, I never really listened.
I think I stopped listening at about the age of 7, when I worked out it was all fiction.

Mind you, they never actually said that homosexuality was a sin, but rather just lumped ALL forms of sex into the one big sinful basket!

Suse,

"And now that the adulterers are not being stoned again because of 'laws', we should surely allow gays to marry once those laws are in effect, right?"

Yes, you are right. Once the law is changed homosexuals will be allowed to marry, that is the whole point of the idea of changing the law.
At the moment however such laws are not in place and same sex couples are not allowed to marry.
I have no objection to people marrying be they sad or happy or in between.

NOTE: Christianity stands out from the ancient practises of sexual debauchery and same gender sexual acts. Many Gentile Christians denounced their former behaviour to follow purity and holiness, some were put to death for speaking out against such unclean acts. That is why Christians uphold purity and sexual integrity within family, in contrast to the debauched society.

How is same sex marriage and less unfair, arbitrary and any less a denial of 'rights' than the traditional marriage that is confirmed by the Marriage Act?

What about Muslims, for instance?

The political 'Progressives' and Gay Pride (along with the occasional stirrer, eh Suseonline?) are showing the arrogance, triumphalism and bullying that they might once have criticised Christian churches for and there is a return of serve from some committed religious persons.

However both sides are and have always been intent on leaving out, disenfranchising, the general population who are wondering just what it all means for the definition and understanding of marriage. The public's view and questions are 'represented' by slanted 'surveys' where the sponsor of the 'survey' gets to get the results he wanted in the first place, too easy!

The mainstays of the political 'Progressives, the feminists and the bulk of International Socialists have been open in their hatred of marriage and will to get rid of it ASAP. Yet the public is not to be informed of what they would have instead. Is the State to assume more direction, raising and control of children in lieu of parents?

LGBT activists, especially the Marxist kind, are unlikely to want to be limited to the expectations of what they insultingly refer to as 'traditional' marriage.

It is unreasonable to expect that the public should continue to be herded by activists and academic (humanities) elitists who are adeptly managing the populist tabloid media.

It is those who push for change who must open the box to describe and give practical examples of what marriage will be. What it is and they are so dissatisfied with, is understood and has stood the test of time, but exactly what is the replacement/s that will 'evolve' and how does it/they work?

Once again folks we get "on the beach" - beating the same old
tired drum. It's the "Progressives," who have to
explain themselves. They're always the ones at fault after all.
Don't you know!

So perhaps the best solution would be to let the country
decide which direction it wants to go - with a Referendum.

Still, I suspect that in "on the beach's eyes" it will still be
the fault of all those dreadful "Progressives," no matter how
the country votes.