Angela Harlem
Jesus Online
And we shall settle this gay - marriage debate once and for all...
Angela Harlem said:And we shall settle this gay - marriage debate once and for all...
AEON said:While one liners are cute and get a nice round of applause from the peanut gallery - that does not make them true.
nbcrusader said:I’m not sure what bearing a change in the age of consent would have over what has traditionally been deemed a marriage. The two concepts are not inseparable, and really create a side issue to a very basic point.
nbcrusader said:They are simply observations.
I guess they carry a little sting.
melon said:I love it when people march in, insult a whole class of people as if they are all mentally ill atheists who worship Satan, and then play the victim when those same people fight back.
But hey...welcome to FYM!
melon said:I love it when people march in, insult a whole class of people as if they are all mentally ill atheists who worship Satan, and then play the victim when those same people fight back.
But hey...welcome to FYM!
Melon
nbcrusader said:A couple of points on the theological issues touch upon in this thread. First, the concept of sin is not defined as things we choose. It is defined as things God declares to be unholy. We often confuse the argument with what God ought to say, instead of what God did say.
The quickest response possible is usually not the best thought out response. Getting caught up with the “snappy” responses can be very frustrating. If people complain that your comment is offensive, perhaps it hits too close to home for some posts.
nbcrusader said:Would you care to elaborate (or simply quote) the post where the above argument is made? I know these threads go by quickly, but I don't recall anyone raising the Satan worshiping issue.
melon said:
For the record, I was not specifically referring to you or any specific event. But I know the attitude in here. The self-righteous "believers" come in, paint the world black and white, and anyone who does not fit in that New World Order can, bluntly, fuck off. That's the "Objective Moral Law," right?
And where I get frustrated is that when I advocate an idea of maximum personal freedom, with an acceptance that there are more conservative and liberal viewpoints in this world that are best left to personal morality than public morality, I'm somehow decried as an "atheist" and that eating babies for dinner is part of my philosophy. Or that, somehow, accepting diversity is accepting Satan.
No, people don't need to use the specific words. But the writing is more than written on the wall.
Melon
AEON said:No, I don't think you are a Satanist. I disagree with you on many of these points - but I do think you mean well. We just disgaree.
melon said:
That's all fine and dandy, but you know what it would mean for your viewpoint to be legislated? A restriction of my freedoms and restriction of my ability to exercise my pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. You know what it means to you for my viewpoint to be legislated? Absolutely nothing.
So pardon me if I am unable to merely shrug this off as merely a meeting of ideas. There are, contrary to the hype, real people affected.
Melon
melon said:
You know what it means to you for my viewpoint to be legislated? Absolutely nothing.
Melon
BonoVoxSupastar said:Why hasn't anyone actually answered my theological questions from pages ago?
yolland said:Speaking of snappy responses...if this is all going to turn into a round of petty tit-for-tat about which "side" has the largest number of polite people rooting for it, I can always close the thread.
Please keep it civil, guys...there's no need to pad your insights with digs at one another, veiled or otherwise. Thanks.
AEON said:Well, I'm not sure I know what your viewpoint is, Melon. Because you are a cultural relativist, or you seem to be arguing this point in the other thread, you essential are saying "to each man his own."
While your "personal" view is one I agree with on most subjects, it is not something we cannot legislate because it is only your subjective opinion for your life, and not an objective idea to which we can govern everybody.
So essentially - your argument, using your adherence to cultural relativism, self-destructs and dissipates before it would ever reach legislation.
Unless, of course, you ARE admitting there at least a FEW objective moral laws (murder, rape).
That being said, I still think we can still get along just fine
now this is a very interesting pointmelon said:What sickens me is that the only consistent logic I see with you is that "Objective Moral Law" is defined by whatever you believe, and that "cultural relativism" is defined by whatever you believe is wrong.
and I would want to see a real answer to this onemelon said:Back to what I was saying, before you made your smug, irrelevant response, if gay marriage is legal, you are not affected. At all. You can fume all you want that you can't control other people's lives, but your day to day lifestyle is exactly the same. If your homophobia is legal, then the lives of gays and lesbians are directly affected, no matter how much they disagree with you. THAT was my point.
BonoVoxSupastar said:Why hasn't anyone actually answered my theological questions from pages ago?
Irvine511 said:oh well. it continues to amaze me how gay marriage threads explode in FYM.