Register | Sign In

Understanding through Discussion

EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,577 Year: 4,834/9,624 Month: 182/427 Week: 95/85 Day: 0/2 Hour: 0/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Haggard Scandal
Inactive Member

Message 271 of 302 (361998)
11-05-2006 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by Silent H
11-05-2006 6:52 PM

Re: We're not dogs, you moron!
holmes, you're reading past what I'm saying. I never said there was no basis whatever for the comparison, I said that there's no way to use the comparison without it being insulting. Like I said to Faith, in 1900 you'd have made just as much sense to say "would you allow an ape to vote?" as a way of arguing against giving the vote to African-Americans, but there's no way you could have crafted an argument using that comparison without an implied insult.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message or continue in this vein.
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning


This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Silent H, posted 11-05-2006 6:52 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by Silent H, posted 11-05-2006 7:48 PM berberry has not replied

Posts: 34048
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 5.7

Message 272 of 302 (361999)
11-05-2006 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by tudwell
11-05-2006 6:34 PM

Very Glad to see you seem to understand Matt 25
Reading the story of the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25 makes it pretty clear that those who end up being rejected were very likely what would today be Christians, while the sheep were likely NOT followers of Jesus.
It is significant that the issue of belief is only brought up indirectly.
The sheep are surprised to be selected. They go so far as to say, "Are you sure you are talking about us? We never did anything for you."
They are surprised because they knew that they had never done anything for Jesus, never helped him, never fed him.
The others are equally surprised they were rejected. They too question. They ask, "Whoa there boss. When didn't we do something for you? If we had known you were hungry we would have fed you."
The message is simple. We can do nothing for GOD or for Jesus. All we can do is try to do what is right.
It doesn't matter if you believe, if you worship, if you praise.
Just try to do what is right.
It really is that simple.
Haggard, if he has a fault, forgot the message.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by tudwell, posted 11-05-2006 6:34 PM tudwell has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by tudwell, posted 11-05-2006 7:27 PM jar has not replied
 Message 280 by tsig, posted 11-05-2006 10:58 PM jar has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5898 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002

Message 273 of 302 (362000)
11-05-2006 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by Hyroglyphx
11-05-2006 4:28 PM

Re: absolute morality is all relative
Just to let you know, I had a response to you back at #232. I realize you just got into a whole other thing to keep you busy.
If its any consolation, I understood your point and how your critics are stepping right into it. As I said to nwr, relativists tend to act as absolutists just as absolutists tend to act as relativists. As long as one has a personal code it will eventually have to get slapped on someone else as true, or excused away as conditions merit.
That's one of the reasons I got out of the right/wrong game a while ago. There is NO such thing as morality. Those are words meant to make people's tastes and whims sound justified.
The best systems were descriptive ethics found outside of/before monotheistic impressions (on the west) of black/white thinking. People are as they do, acting out both virtues and vices, but none of it wrong... just showing what they are.

"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-05-2006 4:28 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Member (Idle past 6057 days)
Posts: 172
From: KCMO
Joined: 08-20-2006

Message 274 of 302 (362001)
11-05-2006 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by Rob
11-05-2006 6:40 PM

Then why is the group on the left, the one's trying to justify themselves? The one's on his right asked, "when did we do these things?" Certainly such do-gooders would remember their service to the poor.
They ask Jesus, "When did we help you?" And he replies, "You helped your 'brethren'." That's the end of the conversation. They don't ask when they helped the poor, or gave shelter to the homeless. They ask when they did that for Jesus.
Edited by tudwell, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Rob, posted 11-05-2006 6:40 PM Rob has not replied

Member (Idle past 1483 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004

Message 275 of 302 (362002)
11-05-2006 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Hyroglyphx
11-04-2006 10:26 PM

Re: Drugs
I can see how Robertson fits in that criteria, but I've never really understood why Dobson is so despised by the irreligious.
Because he chooses to make religion into politics. Because it wants to create the american taliban theocracy, because he wants to subvert america, because he is a traitor to the constitution.
Do I need any more reason?

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-04-2006 10:26 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Member (Idle past 6057 days)
Posts: 172
From: KCMO
Joined: 08-20-2006

Message 276 of 302 (362003)
11-05-2006 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by jar
11-05-2006 7:08 PM

Re: Very Glad to see you seem to understand Matt 25
That's exactly what I was trying to say. Your attitude toward Jesus doesn't matter. It's your attitude toward your fellow brethren that does.
And you tied this whole off topic discussion into the OP.
Edited by tudwell, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by jar, posted 11-05-2006 7:08 PM jar has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5898 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002

Message 277 of 302 (362007)
11-05-2006 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by berberry
11-05-2006 7:05 PM

AbE: Sorry to AdminPD I posted before I saw your note not to reply!
I never said there was no basis whatever for the comparison, I said that there's no way to use the comparison without it being insulting.
Okay, that is not quite how it was coming off, particularly when you brought up the concept of consent as to why they are different. But I get what you are saying above, and if that is what you meant then I stand corrected, except to say it sure wasn't clear to me.
But then I'd point out that I didn't feel particularly insulted and it involved two categories I am for giving marriage rights to (polygamy and homosexuals), one being one I wouldn;t mind being in. You have a right to voicing that you felt insulted by it (and feeling such), but I don't think it was meant that way, and NJ should probably be judged based on his intent rather than how his words might come off.
in 1900 you'd have made just as much sense to say "would you allow an ape to vote?" as a way of arguing against giving the vote to African-Americans
Actually I saw that in the mod thread and it really did make me think. Did that actually occur?
In any case, I believe there is a vast difference between asking would you allow an ape to vote, and what NJ asked.
The former is clearly a loaded insult, playing on stereotypes, to frighten people from allowing a group, normally regarded as human, full rights as such. It has no background argument about relativism leading to anything plausible, unless one believes monkeys will ask for the vote... in which I would say could they do any worse?
Behind NJs questions, which sound similar to the one you suggested, is the argument that if we introduce true relativism into legal practice regarding marriage there is no logical barrier to polygamy, marriage at all ages, and marriage to animals. It is a factual statement (there really would be no logical barrier) used as an emotional appeal to get people realizing they don't want relativist standards enforced in law.
Real people have asked for polygamy, marriage to minors (and in some cases have it already), as well as to animals (and where not marriage then sexual activity... in some places already having that right). Where denied they usually make the same case that gays do, to civil rights, and precedent of the repeal of anti-miscegenation laws or other civil rights gains by blacks.
It is intriguing that many blacks have found those comparisons (including gay marriage) insults to them and their civil rights work. My guess is people you just said you felt offended being compared to would feel the same as you would if a black person stated their offense at being compared to you.
Its not really an argument one way or the other, just a relative perspective thing.
This is a sticky situation and I realize easy for people to get offended. This'll probably be my last comment on the issue, unless you have something major to add.
Edited by holmes, : apology to PD
Edited by holmes, : fix

"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by berberry, posted 11-05-2006 7:05 PM berberry has not replied

Suspended Member (Idle past 5993 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003

Message 278 of 302 (362014)
11-05-2006 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by Hyroglyphx
11-05-2006 4:01 PM

Re: absolute morality is all relative
Whoever said anything about being a pacifist? All your talk about pacifism is a stawman and a diversion.
Jesus’ character and message is diametrically opposed to the god described in the old testament. The god of the OT commanded genocide and approved of rape and pillaging.
There is a considerable gapping philosophical divide between that and just not "being a pacifist"!
Deuteronomy 20 writes:
As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.
Or in reference of repaying the Babylonian's (the enemy) for their evil deeds the godly inspired psalmist sings....
Psalms 137 writes:
How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones Against the rock.
As an aside I actually read some apologetic claim that the rock here was Jesus the rock. OK sure.
Now compare that to Jesus’ admonishments of "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you".
I understand all your talk about winning over your enemies and such, which has nothing to do with this issue.
Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-05-2006 4:01 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Member (Idle past 2248 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001

Message 279 of 302 (362021)
11-05-2006 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by Silent H
11-05-2006 7:00 PM

Re: Drugs
If you believe there are no such things as universal standards, and in fact morals are relative, then you will have to concede that "consenting adult" is not a true absolute criteria and the situations he is describing could be considered equally valid.
I'd rather talk about reality than philosophical la-la lands.
"Consenting adult" in the culture and society we live in, right here in the US, right now in the 21st century, has a pretty firm meaning.
If there are universal morals or not is irrelevant to the discussion on gay marriage, IMO.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by Silent H, posted 11-05-2006 7:00 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by Silent H, posted 11-06-2006 4:53 AM nator has not replied

Member (Idle past 2987 days)
Posts: 738
From: USA
Joined: 04-09-2004

Message 280 of 302 (362047)
11-05-2006 10:58 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by jar
11-05-2006 7:08 PM

Re: Very Glad to see you seem to understand Matt 25
Haggard, if he has a fault, forgot the message.
No he just bent over a page to rember where he was.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by jar, posted 11-05-2006 7:08 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by jar, posted 11-05-2006 11:03 PM tsig has not replied

Posts: 34048
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 5.7

Message 281 of 302 (362048)
11-05-2006 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by tsig
11-05-2006 10:58 PM

What's in an H?
No he just bent over a page to rember where he was.
Gotta keep your "H"s straight. It was Hassert that bent over a page.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by tsig, posted 11-05-2006 10:58 PM tsig has not replied

Inactive Member

Message 282 of 302 (362057)
11-06-2006 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by Silent H
11-05-2006 3:15 PM

Re: absolute morality is all relative
I don't have a sense of right or wrong
So if I butchered a baby before your eyes, you would be incapable of distinguishing whether or not I did something wrong?
The "legitimate standard" for a relativist with a personal (or cultural) code is acceptance of that code, which generally means feeling bad for violating it (or accepting punishment for doing so). The "legitimate standard" for a relativist without a code of right or wrong is doing what comes naturally, which derives from a combination of life experiences.
Again, this argument only holds so much water when the introduction of a small child who has no formal training in the law. Would you disagree that there is something innate in humans that we have some grander sense of morals-- perhaps genetics? You've already shared that you believe people are inherently honest, (I disagree), but even if that were the case, wouldn't that suggest that these were imparted in us?
If I wear a black shirt because I like black shirts in no way contradicts another person wearing a white shirt because they like white shirts. Moral sensitivity is about choice and feelings regarding a choice. People can and do make separate choices.
You're still not understanding. Personal preferences, like colors, or clothing styles, or flavors have nothing to do with morals or any absolutes. That would be like me sayong, "that tree is wrong." You'd probably look at me quizically, and ask, "what do you mean by wrong?" What could make a tree wrong? Morals are vastly different, because if we were to say, "murder is wrong," immediately everyone knows exactly what we're talking about and they are all in agreement.
The fact that some people do murder and like it, and some think it is wrong, sort of disproves your concept.
The fact that they like it makes them sinners who have begun to sever their own conscience, but the fact that they hide themselves is the evidence that they are aware that they have done something wrong.
First I would say that essentially makes the concept of murder always being wrong patently not universal.
Name me a society or a tribe that does not know what murder is and I will consider it.
Second I don't believe murder is wrong.
Then you believe that its right. Or you are claiming indifference to murder. I doubt, however, if you were put to the test that you'd feel apathy.
I don't like a range of ways people kill each other, but some are considered murder and some are not. Some are considered right and some are not. I have no sense of what "wrong" is in defining one from the other.
Man 1: Some try to escape from the meaning with word games, but they can't escape from the emotion it brings them. The emotion goads them to believe. Why do they try to deny what they already know in their hearts?
Man 2: Its the implications, friend. If they commit this much, then nothing would keep them from coming to the ultimate conclusion.
Man 1: What conclusion is that?
Man 2: God. A dreadful prospect for those imbued by their own sense of self-worth.
You can claim I am "deadening my senses" but I'm not sure what that means either, other than you are making up an ad hoc proposition to save your theory. Anyone can do that.
And anyone can assign any excuse to serve relativism. Like I shared earlier, the fact that people commit crimes proves that they are sinners. The fact that they try to cover up their crimes proves that they know right from wrong.
Whites could kill blacks without provocation in the past.
Let God judge what is immoral. I'm not here to argue what the absolutes are, only that it is necessary for them to exist.
In essence you are arguing that every culture generally has some legal restriction against killing someone, though no inherent commonality between them.
The commonality between them all is that murder is unlawful. What constitutes murder is a matter of interpretation. But if you'll notice, no society is a far departure from another on the matter.
I could be wrong but I believe the Yanomamo would trip you up even there.
Why is that?
Who said anything about murder? You said the kid would be horrified. If you told the kid an abortion was not murder that is likely what the child would believe, just as if you showed her images of an enemy soldier being blown to bits (arms and legs scattering) and told her it was not murder. That is generally how the child will come to experience the world and believe it is.
It was meant if you did not train the child's behavior, rather, just let them watch. What would they come to on their own without any outside influence?
A relativist can still state what is tolerant and intolerant.
Not with any measure of truth or meaning behind it.
That is not a judgement of right or wrong.
Of course it is. Saying that I'm intolerant, you are saying that its bad. You would be meaning to chastise me. You would be expecting me to conform with your notions of right and wrong, or at least pleading me to come to some sort of agreement on what it means.
A dishonest relativist will claim that their personal belief system involves no intolerance. A closet absolutist will claim that they are a relativist and then state that another system is WRONG because it is intolerant.
I believe, philosophically, that there are moral absolutes for all the reasons I have listed. I would be exalting my beliefs over another's if I tried to asset that I know empirically that I have inside knowledge of what the absolutes are. I believe I am right in my assessment, but I don't know. Does that make sense? I believe in both absolutes and relativity. I believe most things in life deal with relativity. But I believe the big things, like the laws of physics and morality deal with the absolute. But I can't prove which morals are absolute. I can only make persuasive arguments in their favor.
You are absolutely correct that a relativist has no logically solid basis on which to argue against your moral codes (that they are wrong)... save two things. A relativist can point out inconsistencies within your system, and can attempt an emotional appeal that would make you change your moral system to fit your feelings on some subject.
I would agree with that. I see absolute morals as being so finite and so rigid that its almost impossible not to find at least one inconsistency. In contrast, I see relativism as being completely inconsistent to the point where all meaning is lost. Up doesn't really mean up, and down could mean down if it were under circumstance A., but not under circumstance B. or C. Uhhhh, what?
"I like vanilla." That's true for me. And you say, "I like chocolate." Both statements are true insofar as it depends on you.
Now you have a handle on moral relativism.
Those have nothing to do with morals.
Laws are written by the citizens to protect themselves. Empathy for suffering has nothing to do with identifying wrong, and neither does revulsion at witnessing an event. I could be horrified at watching an operation done without anesthesia on a friend to save her life, but that would not make it wrong.
Alright, well lets go in this direction that laws have nothing to do with morals. Would you agree that some laws, perhaps what you might consider as the important laws, to be guided by a moral framework?
Further still I could be both horrified and elated at the same time while hacking my foe to pieces on a battlefield, an act for which I receive medals... up until a revolution topples the gov't and I am hung as a horrendous butcher... and then the tables turn and I am posthumously placed as a hero in history books.
That's because there is a vast difference between killing and murder. Everyone knows that. If it weren't, we wouldn't have such notions as manslaughter negligent people who accidently kill people.
Ever notice how selfishness is not considered a virtue only until its in context to some Darwinian sense?
Whoa whoa whoa. Now you are entering MY territory. Who said selfishness was a virtue?
Richard Dawkins and his ilk.
That people pass laws for self preservation is not synonymous with selfishness. That laws CAN be made based on selfishness (rather than self preservation) does not make selfishness a virtue.
Again, certain evo's have used self-preservation as a more evolved mechanism for human selfishness. In the "Selfish Gene," Dawkins basically describes every desire as being inherently selfish, but that we shouldn't view negatively because its just a survival reaction. I disagree.
And I challenge your statement about selfishness and Darwin. I can think of many examples of selfishness before his time, but not many more large scale and adored than Moses stepping off the mountain to slay men, women, and children because they did not do exactly what he said, then the purges which followed to create the Kingdom of Israel. The feats of Alexander were also quite selfish, yet not so adored as those of Moses and Kind David.
How can doing anything from God's will be considered selfish? I'm not Jewish, but I'd venture to say that keeping all the 613 laws of Moses a burdensome stone that requires selflessness, not selfishness. And I'm sure at times they'd be more than happy to trade positions, being that they view gentile life easy so long as they can maintain the 7 Noachide laws.
I might add that your God specifically states that he is angry and jealous. That latter point is impossible without the "virtue" of selfishness.
Yes, you are right. But perhaps using human jealously and anger cannot be so for God. Consider the context:
"For I am jealous over you with a godly jealousy. For I married you to one husband, that I might present you as a pure virgin to Christ." -2nd Corinthians 11:2
Then let me ask you if murder is wrong. Is murder wrong? If so, why?
No. I can tell you that some cases of killing are illegal (and classified as murder). Most kinds of killing I would never want to engage in, but they are not wrong just because I would not want to do them. Thankfully there are some willing to kill in ways I would personally prefer not to. They help protect me against people that might try to kill me and I wouldn't want.
But why Holmes? Afterall, isn't that the grand question? Why is most killing illegal? What do we understand about such things? Isn't there something within us that seeks justice for the slain?
I did not claim that YOU would not want to make laws based on morals, nor that no one could make laws based on morals. My only claim is that laws are not inherently based on morals. They don't have to be because there are other ways of constructing them.
Then how can anyone come to a decision about laws if not by some moral framework? To state otherwise would mean that laws are completely arbitrary. Don't we make laws against things like fraud, rape, robbery becuase we see it as being 'wrong?' So, how else does anyone come to their decisions?
I might point out that it is unlikely any of us have had to think about making laws about murder, rape, or theft. Most of them were made long ago which is why we don't have to think about them. I am pointing you back to the founding fathers of our system of gov't and their influence in creating our system. It was based on social contract theory and so rights as one takes for onesself.
The foundation of America comes from four civilizations. From Jerusalem we derive our theological view. From Athens we derive our philosophical views. From Rome we derive our governmental view. And from London we derive our immediate cultural view. American law is a conglomerate of all four.
Bush's allowance for torture and warrantless wire tapping and pre-emptive wars against people who currently pose no threat are repulsive to me and why I hold they should be illegal (if not already). Not because they are wrong... unless by that one means likely to fail at their mission and against the values agreed to as founding principles for this particular gov't.
These are good examples. How can feel so strongly for something and in the same breath, pretend that it doesn't really exist? Or if it does exist, that it is really inconsequential to life?
Well you are not discussing me, or everyone else. Some cultures have valued lying, or at least not found it morally reprehensible, and found blunt honesty tactless and blundering, perhaps even a sign of weakness.
What? Who values being lied to? Seriously, that's just preposterous.
When I lie I will feel guilty if it involved breaking some trust with someone (sometimes including myself), otherwise it means nothing to me. It certainly isn't wrong in either case. Every time I do it, or chose not to, it defines my character. That is all.
Why do you make it so casual if it defines your very character? That's all? That's pretty important, wouldn't you say?
Uhmmm... I'm not sure if he was saying it was immoral or not. In any case I get the humor that a supposed moralist has been hung by the same rope he was trying to lynch others with. I personally don't think what he did was immoral.
Then you think that what he did was acceptable? Lets use immoral to mean 'wrong.' Would you not think it was wrong for your husband or wife to be sneaking around behind your back with meth-addicted prostitutes? Would it be wrong if your significant other transmitted some venereal disease unwittingly to you? There isn't some moral obligation from your significant other? I find all of this hard to believe. Maybe you are trying not to judge another man's position. So, instead, what if you were the victim, as I'm sure his family is?
My personal run down on the guy is this: Who cares if he does drugs, pays for sex, or has sex with men? I can see why his wife would be upset because he betrayed her trust. I can see why his congregation would be upset as he betrayed their trust.
You can't see that? You don't think its important for people to live the virtues they espouse? Sure, no one can keep all of them, all of the time. But buying meth and male prostitutes is pretty far departure from everything he knows to be moral.
I can see why he would be upset since he pretended to hate all such things. He has identified his character as dishonest, untrustworthy, and overtly hypocritical.
There ya go. In a nutshell.
If it helps I have witnessed one, possibly two, murders, as well as an attempted murder. Two were horrendously brutal and just steps from me. If I lacked imagination before that time, I certainly had enough after that. This does not include being personally attacked in situations where I could very well have been killed, or badly injured, but thankfully escaped (in addition to those above).
Well, I've seen a man get shot straight in the heart from a drive-by shooting near a strip mall. As he was bleeding profusely, two men from a nearby pizza shop were talking to him. One was craddling his head as the man was gasping for air. His eyes spoke terror to me. And as he was lying there, the other man went through his pockets to rob him while this man was dying. His face went from terror to shock, as he apparently had enough wits about him still to be in utter shock that somebody would have the audacity to rob him while he was dying. I was in complete shock. Just then, the police arrived and hey ran into their shop. I was so outraged that I informed the cops. They didn't care either. They weren't even helping him. He was still alive and they were talking field interviews. I came up close to him then because he looked alone and terrified about where he was going. And I tried to talk to him to comfort him. But by then, he was almost gone. And then he lost all muscle control and all the air in lungs escaped with an unmistakable sound. And he slowly closed his eyes.
I had seen dead people before. But I had never seen a man die right in front of me. But even more shocking is that somebody would feel compelled to steal a few dollars off of a dying man instead of trying to help him. Now, Holmes, can you honestly sit there and tell me that there was no immoral action by the shop owners?

"The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God." -2nd Corinthians 10:4-5

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Silent H, posted 11-05-2006 3:15 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by RickJB, posted 11-06-2006 3:47 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 294 by Silent H, posted 11-06-2006 8:24 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Inactive Member

Message 283 of 302 (362059)
11-06-2006 12:45 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by berberry
11-05-2006 4:34 PM

Re: We're not dogs, you moron!
No it is not, because there is no valid comparison between them. There is only a thinly veiled insult, and I don't for one second believe it wasn't intended.
Believe whatever you want. But I explained my position and the meaning of my own post and I apologized for having said anything that might have confused you. I'm not sure what more can I do for you.

"The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God." -2nd Corinthians 10:4-5

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by berberry, posted 11-05-2006 4:34 PM berberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by Taz, posted 11-06-2006 12:52 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 288 by berberry, posted 11-06-2006 4:14 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Inactive Member

Message 284 of 302 (362060)
11-06-2006 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by ramoss
11-05-2006 5:39 PM

Re: We're not dogs, you moron!
That in nonsense. There is a difference between an expression of love and commitment between two consenting adults, and marriage between a person and a minor, or an animal. As far as I can see, a minor or an animal can not consent.
The way I view it, if you are against same gender marriage, don't marry someone of the same gender.
What difference is there if its all relative? You are making it sound as if marrying dogs and children is an immoral action. Is that what you think? If were both moral relativists, should your opinion mean anything to me? Is the starting to click for you. Apparently only Holmes is actually understanding the argument. And he's making me work for my position.

"The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God." -2nd Corinthians 10:4-5

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by ramoss, posted 11-05-2006 5:39 PM ramoss has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by RickJB, posted 11-06-2006 3:56 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Member (Idle past 3370 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006

Message 285 of 302 (362061)
11-06-2006 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 283 by Hyroglyphx
11-06-2006 12:45 AM

Re: We're not dogs, you moron!
nemesis_jug writes:
I'm not sure what more can I do for you.
Um... mind your own bussiness and leave gay people alone? Trying to pass constitutional amendments to specifically target a group of people is not leaving them alone.
I'm still struggling to understand how giving gay people hospital visitation rights or spousal privileges in the court of law bring about the apocolypse... or ruin your marriage. Are you having marriage problems? Would you like to talk about it? Perhaps you should seek counseling?
Added by edit.
Oh, and stop calling gay people dogs.
Edited by gasby, : No reason given.

Place yourself on the map at
The thread about this map can be found here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-06-2006 12:45 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by Silent H, posted 11-06-2006 5:12 AM Taz has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024