RicOlie_2

When people try to convert me by attacking my beliefs, I get offended I guess, so I get your point. If they tell me politely that the Bible has mistakes in it and give me their reasons and respect me when I say "Nuh uh, I'm sticking with this," then I'm fine with that. It's when people try to force me to believe something that I get offended. They can debate me, and as long as they don't attack me for my beliefs or continually push their beliefs on me I'm fine.

Having said that, I apologize if it looks like I'm trying to force my beliefs on you, as I don't intend it that way.

TV's Frink said:

RicOlie_2 said:

To use a well known saying: "the truth hurts." You can say that whatever makes you feel good is right, but then you are just avoiding admitting that you might be wrong (yeah, this could be aimed back at me, so maybe I shouldn't have made this post, but I think the truth does hurt and I think it is the truth that homosexual acts are wrong).

Just for fun, let's pretend I have a book called the Bloof.  My God spoke to man years and years and years ago, and proclaimed that all must follow the Bloof.  The Bloof specifically says that Catholicism is a false religion and any who follow it are doomed to eternity in hell.  Further, it is my duty as a chosen Bloofite to convince Catholics that they are wrong and living against the wishes of God.  I am utterly convinced in the word of my God as recorded in the Bloof.

I love you as a fellow human being, but the way you are living your life is wrong.

How does that make you feel?  Do you appreciate my wanting to save you from hell for following a false God?

 I have encountered such people and they are more commonly known as Muslims as Warbler said/wrote. I understand the way they think in that regard, though I don't believe it, but I am not offended in the least. My family hires Mennonites who believe we're all going to hell, but they're nice people and I accept their beliefs as well. I'm happy that they want me to go to heaven, and I am even happier when they are persistent (if it is passive persistence and they aren't trying to convert me on pain of death), since they are showing that they care about other people (unless they're doing it for their own spiritual gain).

EDIT: By "accept" I mean that I accept it in the way I might accept that the SE is messed up and we will probably never get a pristine quality version of the unaltered originals , but I still hope and petition for the originals to be released in good quality.

^I'm going to regret saying that...maybe I should remove it before it's too late...

...

...

...

...Nah. ;)

To use a well known saying: "the truth hurts." You can say that whatever makes you feel good is right, but then you are just avoiding admitting that you might be wrong (yeah, this could be aimed back at me, so maybe I shouldn't have made this post, but I think the truth does hurt and I think it is the truth that homosexual acts are wrong).

TV's Frink said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Leonardo said:

Warbler said:

TV's Frink said:

There were comments on the previous page bemoaning the fact that it's ok to "bash" Christianity but not homosexuality.  That's what I was responding to.

 It is perfectly acceptable in society to bash Christianity. 

Yeah, look, you're comparing apples and cacti here. On one hand, you have the bashing of an organized religion, which I won't go into. On the other hand, you have the bashing of people, being what they are. The two do not equate.

No, not the bashing of people necessarily, but the bashing of what they do.

 Telling someone that what they do is a sin and they are going to hell because of it is considered bashing by most non-religious people.

 Those people are only going to hell if they continue doing it and also realize how wrong their actions are. You wouldn't tell someone to stop "bashing" a kid because they were warning a kid not to stick a nail in an electrical outlet. We aren't trying to bash people, but trying to stop them from doing what is wrong.

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Warbler said:

MrBrown said:

Maybe it would be nessecary to divide between marriage by church and marriage by state?

As with thinks like other taxes for marriaged persons, or the right to visit the partner in a hospital, it is no more some kind of "religious only" thing.

If a catholic beliefe that a homosexual will burn in hell, and shall not be married in a catholic church: sad thing, but.. okay... house rules. (Going just as far as somebody has to suffer, so: NO EXORCISM!)

But: Why shall catholic interferre in questions regarding the legal questions, like:

- visiting in hospitals

- adopting children

- taxes

It is out of their house.

But here comes the point: They tend to demonstrate against things they just could ignore...

 I agree here.  Besides the law already recognizes marriages the Catholic Church would not.    I could be mistaken(and please correct me if I am) but I don't think the Catholic Church recognizes any marriage that is not done by a Catholic Priest.   In addition(and again correct me if I am wrong),  I don't think the Catholic Church recognizes divorce.   Therefore they would not recognize and marriage where one or both participants are previously divorced and the person(s) they are divorced  to is still alive.    

 The Catholic Church accepts non-Catholic marriages for those who aren't members of the Church. If those people were to convert to the Church, they would not be required to remarry.

but if they do not convert, their marriage would not be recognized as legit by the Catholic Church correct?

No. I mean that the validity of their marriage is still recognized if they convert (EDIT: meaning that it is recognized beforehand).

RicOlie_2 said:

The Catholic Church does not accept divorce as a valid end to marriage, but annulments do happen, but in this case the marriage is considered never to have taken place in the first place since not all the requirements of a valid marriage were met. For example, if something important was concealed from one party that would have otherwise prevented the marriage from taking place, the marriage is not considered valid because it wouldn't have happened if the secret was known beforehand.

 oh,  I know you can do annulments, but I only taking about divorce.    If one were to divorce and then try to marry someone else without getting an annulment, Catholic Priests would refuse to perform such a marriage, yes?    If the couple were then to decide to get married by a judge, the marriage would not be recognized as legit by the Catholic Church, yes? 

It would be a marriage recognized by the law as law and legit, with all the legals rights and tax stuff that would apply, but it would not be recognized by the church.   Just like a gay marriage if that were to become legal.

 That is correct.

TV's Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV's Frink said:

There were comments on the previous page bemoaning the fact that it's ok to "bash" Christianity but not homosexuality.  That's what I was responding to.

 It is perfectly acceptable in society to bash Christianity.   Quick, name one person fired from a TV show for Christianity bashing.  

Can't do it?  Didn't think so.  

 So what?  It's still a first world problem.

 Yeah, I have to agree. Christians (and some others) in the Middle East are getting blown to pieces and we're complaining about people making fun of us!

Leonardo said:

Warbler said:

TV's Frink said:

There were comments on the previous page bemoaning the fact that it's ok to "bash" Christianity but not homosexuality.  That's what I was responding to.

 It is perfectly acceptable in society to bash Christianity. 

Yeah, look, you're comparing apples and cacti here. On one hand, you have the bashing of an organized religion, which I won't go into. On the other hand, you have the bashing of people, being what they are. The two do not equate.

No, not the bashing of people necessarily, but the bashing of what they do.

Quick, name one person fired from a TV show for Christianity bashing.  

Can't do it?  Didn't think so.  

 I can think of at least one person who got banned from tv because of blasphemy. You can argue I live in a country that culturally is still in the dark ages, and you would be right.

Far fewer people get in trouble over bashing Christianity.

talk disrespectfully about homosexuals and you get fired

would you show disrespect to a black gentleman?

I believe he meant practicing homosexuals. Black men are born black, homosexuals are usually born homosexual, but they choose to engage in sex acts.

talk disrespectfully about Christianity and that is perfectly ok, no big deal.  

so what? you don't lose any of your faith do you? so what's it to you?

 So what? The homosexuals don't become heterosexual, do they? So what's it to you if people criticize their actions?

Warbler said:

MrBrown said:

Maybe it would be nessecary to divide between marriage by church and marriage by state?

As with thinks like other taxes for marriaged persons, or the right to visit the partner in a hospital, it is no more some kind of "religious only" thing.

If a catholic beliefe that a homosexual will burn in hell, and shall not be married in a catholic church: sad thing, but.. okay... house rules. (Going just as far as somebody has to suffer, so: NO EXORCISM!)

But: Why shall catholic interferre in questions regarding the legal questions, like:

- visiting in hospitals

- adopting children

- taxes

It is out of their house.

But here comes the point: They tend to demonstrate against things they just could ignore...

 I agree here.  Besides the law already recognizes marriages the Catholic Church would not.    I could be mistaken(and please correct me if I am) but I don't think the Catholic Church recognizes any marriage that is not done by a Catholic Priest.   In addition(and again correct me if I am wrong),  I don't think the Catholic Church recognizes divorce.   Therefore they would not recognize and marriage where one or both participants are previously divorced and the person(s) they are divorced  to is still alive.    

 The Catholic Church accepts non-Catholic marriages for those who aren't members of the Church. If those people were to convert to the Church, they would not be required to remarry. The Catholic Church does not accept divorce as a valid end to marriage, but annulments do happen, but in this case the marriage is considered never to have taken place in the first place since not all the requirements of a valid marriage were met. For example, if something important was concealed from one party that would have otherwise prevented the marriage from taking place, the marriage is not considered valid because it wouldn't have happened if the secret was known beforehand.

LOL, I guess I'm asleep right now! :)

I am aware of that. I was replying to your comments that those who oppose gay marriage et al. are in the majority.

TV's Frink said:

RicOlie_2 said:

The gay marriage laws coming into play seem to indicate that we are either no longer in the majority, or at least becoming part of the minority anyway.

 I'm pretty sure there are more Christians than homosexuals.  In the US there are more Christians than all other religions combined.  In the US, you have to at least pretend to be somewhat religious to get elected to most national government positions.

You may be turning into the minority on gay marriage, but religion is far from the minority in most aspects.

 Those who are against gay marriage seem to becoming the minority. Those who support it or have nothing against it (and this includes a lot of Christians) are becoming or are the majority now.

The gay marriage laws coming into play seem to indicate that we are either no longer in the majority, or at least becoming part of the minority anyway.

K-8b

K-7a

Warbler said:

EyeShotFirst said:

Like I've said many times. Tolerance is a double-edged sword. If you want the Christian community to tolerate the gay community, you've got to tolerate that most Christians believe the act of gay sex to be wrong.

I agree with this sentiment, but I don't think A&E's problem with Roberson was that he said the homosexuality is sin, but that he compared it to bestiality. 

But I do think the situation shows what Ender was talking about before:

talk disrespectfully about homosexuals and you get fired

talk disrespectfully about Christianity and that is perfectly ok, no big deal.  

I can't tell you the numbers times I've heard people on tv talk just as bad about Christianity as Robertson did homosexuality and no one had any trouble with it whatsoever.

 I agree. People seem to be able to get away with Christian or Christianity bashing, but when the Christians start saying that homosexual acts are wrong, then there's trouble. Not without exception, of course, but why is it OK to insult Christians but not to say that homosexual sex and marriage is wrong?

Oops, I forgot that 4c wasn't defended anymore!

B*5e

http://thechristians.com/?q=node/982&utm_source=theChristians.com+Subscribers&utm_campaign=94a3b56628-TCH-Issue0182-WS&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_ce469a7d32-94a3b56628-61075577

I'm not giving any opinions or anything on this--just providing another topic of discussion.

L-1b

I am enjoying the game, and I wouldn't mind playing again after you defeat me. :) Obviously I have plenty of room for improvement, but that doesn't make me enjoy the game any less. It turns out my Dad has a Shogi game (with a couple pieces missing though) and he used to play it a fair bit, so I think I might play him for practice. I would probably teach it to someone else once I got good enough. Right now I don't know enough strategy to be a good teacher.

G-5a

Px5d

You beat me to it. :)

332

You've got 29,666 posts right now!

Only 334 to go...

G4b-4c