Thanks tactius, those reasons make sense. So basically, marriage is the idea of choosing your family, and the promising the commitment to stick to it. I don't get the word swapping though, sorry? Just because I questioned marriage doesn't make me a BNP supporter/racist/intolerant/homophobic. I have plenty of gay friends, and my girlfriend's (south Indian) parents had an arranged marriage and I know it's not good.
No, he doesn't really. There are plenty of Christians who are happily racist/homophobic/backward, who would happily support churches against gay marriage, and even if they all went away, there are plenty of other churches which do adapt and survive. He's right about some Christians being intolerant, but that doesn't excuse being offensive.
No, but invalidating the op's comment with sound argument is always better than just objecting to what he is saying.
I'd rather give my opponent the ability to say whatever he pleases so that my logic may damn him with his own words. (this post has nothing to do with the damnation of souls.)
I fail to see that woof "invalidated" anything. I stand on the "science" end of this argument, and very left of centre in this discussion (as you well know). And even *I* found that offensive, being neither a committed Christian nor even agreeing with the view being attacked. Surely there's a better way to phrase such points? If I start my argument out with "*@!% those damn fruit gays!!" then do I deserve a coherent response? It really doesn't matter much what's said below it. @kayin, thanks for contributing...you are providing a lot of food for thought and a very rational counter-argument, whether I agree or not.
Glad to contribute. What you guys may not realize is these kind of debates are also the same problems that I face every day. I can't even get work as a minister because I'm more interested in actually fixing the problems or finding the answers than I am in politics and whose suit looks better. These questions and the fights they engender are an issue that is tearing the denominations apart and forcing Christianity into irrelevance. As long as the atmosphere is not hostile, I will continue to interject my often contrary opinion, and back it up with logic. I'd consider any less a disservice. Besides, I wish I were still a tech writer. Maybe someday someone will notice I actually can write.
Doesn't matter whether you do or not. You get one because the respondent is coherent. Woof can rightly complain that ChromeX's outburst is offensive, but how is that challenging him? What do you expect from a guy who says: "**** the church"? Respect and insightful dialogue? We can take offense, or we can challenge with cool logic. Or do we prefer responses like the one to the Danish cartoons about the Prophet Mohammed?
lol. Actually, I don't believe he is challenging him, he's simply stating the remark as blatantly offensive. Which I happen to agree with, even on the opposite side of Woof's views. What do I expect? Nothing from ChromeX, I expect the post to be acknowledged as offensive by us in the moderating staff and a cautionary word to either phrase points a little more coherently and sensibly, or you will be escorted out of the conversation at hand. Not "But does he have a point? Discuss." The point he laid is not capable of discussion on its head alone due to its phrasing. It offers nothing insightful to the conversation, particularly nothing that has not been mentioned in preceding posts. There is nothing to argue against logically.
I don't entirely agree with that. He says (offensive rambling removed): The points he makes (albeit poorly) is: - If certain religions portray God as loving and forgiving, how is that congruent with their condemnation of homosexuals? (he also makes an allusion to race, but it would stray too far off topic to go into that) - The Church is hanging onto certain values that were representative of a particular time and culture, but are not relevant to or valid in our contemporary society, and this inflexibility will result in its extinction as an important socio-cultural influence. Neither are very new and original points, but still. Of course ChromeX's "contribution" was post #6 and suitably ignored --until woof82 responded to it in post #40. Offensive it was, but worthy of so much attention?
I tend to not feed the trolls. Don't want them hanging around the back door, hoping they can get in the house. Always yowling on the back fence, and of course nobody throws away pre-spayed/neutered trolls, so they breed out there, making little wild trolls, and sure, the little wild trolls are kind of cute in a feral sort of way, but they still bite and crap everywhere, and chew up your stuff, and besides, if I feed one troll I gotta feed them all, and feeding a lot of them isn't cheap, and if I start feeding them, they'll hang around and I'll have to keep them. And my wife says I can't have any trolls, cause they argue with the dog and eat the fish. So I don't feed the trolls.
im not getting why i live in the US . . . seriously god is like a mentally disabled black/chinese hermaphrodite and its pissed.
