Originally posted by Storm
It would be more constructive if you attacked ADarksideJedi' s arguments rather than her spelling.
What if we attacked:
1) Her grammar
2) Her lack of logic
3) Her lack of facts
4) Her inability to formulate a convincing argument
Instead....
...because attacking her arguments directly is pointless, since that was our first approach, and she fails to show the ability to counter with a successful argument.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
...because attacking her arguments directly is pointless, since that was our first approach, and she fails to show the ability to counter with a successful argument.
Then stop attacking.
Really, its nto good for the Forum.
I've started an effort to change my ways. I think many major posters here should. It would set an example.
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Oh come on man, you don't really believe that do you?
Originally posted by FeceMan
Yes, I do. One of the primary arguments against homosexuality being a sin is that some Christians say that the laws and rules of the Old Testament don't apply today. The laws might not apply, but the concept of sin certainly does, as it is prevalent throughout the New Testament.
It's not a sin. The concept of sin is one thing, but the laws that govern what makes one thing a sin and another just fine are flawed in the old testament. That's why the old testament is a complete 180 from the new.
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
It's not a sin. The concept of sin is one thing, but the laws that govern what makes one thing a sin and another just fine are flawed in the old testament. That's why the old testament is a complete 180 from the new.
Originally posted by Alliance
And so if sin is based on these stupid laws which Christians arbirarily follow at their convinience, what basis to they have for rejecting homosexuality.
And since when was this marrage debate supposed to be centered areound religion. This is clearly a legal argument.
Originally posted by FeceMan
You just cause me so much pain sometimes. I have explained this through-and-through, and even Urizen understood (or at least he stopped being a retard about it).
Get over it.
Originally posted by FeceMan
Since marriage has had a religious ceremony as part of it and usually has an ordained minister witness it?
The church said the same about interracial marriages. A marriage lisence is given by the STATE. Many marriages don't take place in churches. Who cares what churches want to do. Marrige is a state arrangement and the state should not discriminate.
Originally posted by FeceMan
Yes, I do. One of the primary arguments against homosexuality being a sin is that some Christians say that the laws and rules of the Old Testament don't apply today. The laws might not apply, but the concept of sin certainly does, as it is prevalent throughout the New Testament.
First it's a sin, then it's not a sin, now it is a SIN ?
Feceman...make up your mind.
Beforehand, you said that it was a mistranslation from the original texts to English and every current language..now the translation of homosexuality being a dirty little sin is correct ?
Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of there loss for love and compassion towards others.........also there was homosexuality, and btw Lot tried to give his virgin daughter to a mob to appease them.....Is that god like to do so.............look into the story more for why they were destroyed along with the neighboring cities..............it was many things.
Also Noah had his daughter do the deed with him, was he punished?