1.4 Million March Against Gay Marriage in France

[jkr]

i think the problem here is not the behavior, but the changing of the definitions of words...

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Maybe this will help...

------------



I have also heard "a couple of hundred thousand."

Just giving credit where credit is due. I never claimed to be perfect. What part of the Bible does calling someone a prick violate anyway? Did I ever hold myself up as a paragon of Christian virtues? I called him a prick because that's what he was being, as well as obnoxious. I imagine the sinfulness of calling someone a prick is somewhere along the lines of calling them a "buffoon."

That awkward moment when someone uses the phrase "That awkward moment" just to be witty...

 

[PaulConventionWV]

not that I disagree with what you are saying, but others are making what I said seem unreasonable, which it is not. not if people truly believed those planks I wrote as being true.
I understand the debate of original sin. though the argument that babies go to hell because they didn't accept jesus through a life commitment is a hard sell to the rational.

It is completely unreasonable. By what you are saying, I gather that you think it would be a moral thing to slaughter ALL babies at birth, at least if you are a Christian. God knows everyone before they are born, what kind of person they are. Nobody is innocent, not even the unborn. So I'm sure you can see why it might not be a good thing to end a child's life before it has begun. You have to make a lot of assumptions in order to make the claim that the only "Christian" thing to do would be to support abortion. I believe that not all rewards in heaven are equal. Only those who struggle with life can be worthy of the highest reward, a place in the Kingdom of God. If you have never lived, then you can never be part of that Kingdom. We cannot know good if we do not first know evil.

Now, all that aside, what I have a problem with is that you come on here and act like you already know the answer. You didn't pose a question, you stated what you apparently believed to be fact just so you could make fun of someone's beliefs, which you should have already known aren't all uniform across Christianity. Then, you expect us all to react in a certain way, and if we don't react in that way, then it proves you right, somehow. This is the epitome of ignorance. You try to tell us what we should believe as if you knew, and then you go as far as to discredit my response without knowing how you would have reacted in that situation. Like I said, it's completely presumptuous. You don't attack someone and then try to pose your attack as something other than an attack. If you expect someone to act civil toward you, then show them the same grace.

It's not being right that makes me angry. It's the hubris and the self-righteousness that really burns me up. Someone could raise the same questions about atheism, you know. If there is no God, then there is no absolute morality. Without absolute morality, why is it wrong to kill innocent children? Where do you get the right to criticize and hop on your high horse? You demean and belittle a person's beliefs and then you expect them to be civil toward you. You've got another thing coming if you go through life like that.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I didn't say anything contrary to what you wrote. I just stated an obvious- if death leads to everlasting life, it should be welcomed, not feared. and i'm not advocating the world drink the Kool-Aid and get it over with, I do suggest if people really believe what they say they believe- their perspectives should reflect that reality. if your life choices end up sending you to hell- wouldn't it have been better to die as a baby?

Death often is welcomed. Can I say that I do not fear death? Not for certain. I haven't been that close to it yet. And yet, we are born with this innate will to survive. Wanting to live is ingrained in us. We can't suddenly choose to be indifferent toward death. There is always the feeling that we could accomplish more.

That said, not every Christian believes in an eternal hell. Moreover, some believe it is simply the absence of God. In order to make the claim that our outlook on life should reflect a fear of burning in hell eternally, you have to rely on the view that hell is a place of pain and torment, as opposed to simply being dead. You have to make all kinds of assumptions, like the assumption that children are innocent and automatically get a free pass to heaven. What's more, you have to assume that all rewards in heaven are equal, not to mention the fundamental assumption that the pagan idea of hell is what the Bible was actually talking about.

Also, you have to take into account the fact that murder is a sin, no matter what kind of Christian you claim to be. Therefore, it's never moral to kill a child, no matter what the reason might be. The problem with you is that you see these inconsistencies and just assume that it's because the whole religion is inconsistent rather than questioning the fundamental parts of Christianity you assume to be true. And once again, you came here making a statement, not posing a question. You think you already know why these inconsistencies exist in your conception of Christianity. The first step should be to question your conception, not the religion itself. The next step should be to examine your own beliefs before criticizing someone else's.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I think what you meant to say was "Marriage is a religious institution defined as a man and a woman for YOUR religion. The religious institution crap is not a valid argument against gay marriage (marriage as in state contract marriage not a ceremony)since you can not force your religion on me nor can I on you. Also no one is forcing you or your church to call something anything.

The aggressors in the gay marriage case are the states that are trying to define marriage between one man and one woman (again a religious definition)see prop 8 as an example.

Also has there been a case where someone has tried to force a church to marry them (as in the ceremony)? I would not be shocked if there has been but I really doubt a state has passed a law or a judge has ruled that churches can not refuse to marry LBGT people.

If you think that gay people are somehow wrong in this view of aggression or have no legitimate qualms with what some of these cases, laws, or protest mean for them I would suggest you go back and read the history of how gay people were treated all through last century and then compare it to other groups like women and minorities groups that were treated in a way that we are appalled at today. (here is a hint - involuntary electro shock therapy)

That's just it, though. The term marriage NEVER meant "state contract marriage" until the government hijacked it. The problem isn't that people are forcing Christians to call marriage a state contract, but that the term marriage is being equated with a state contract rather than leaving the two completely separate. The problem is that something that has always had a certain definition is now being hijacked by people who want to impose their definition on it. Then they get all angry when people tell them that their definition is not what marriage means. It's not like we can just invent a completely different term to make room for all the people who want to call a spade a club.

Just because it's popular to call a spade a club, that doesn't mean the people trying to defend their definition are the aggressors. The state has thoroughly confused this whole debate by successfully overriding the traditional definition of marriage and including themselves as a necessary part of the new definition. We need to get rid of this paradigm where government has to contract a license in order for two people to be married. Gay people CAN marry, they just can't get a state license. Rather than trying to get them that license, let's eliminate all licensure of marriage. Unfortunately, so many libertarians have fallen prey to the idea that we should try to achieve equality by granting these licenses to more people instead of taking them away from everyone. Why any libertarian believes this is beyond me. It doesn't make sense except through the lense of anti-Christian thought that many libertarians hold.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

They do, depardieu, but it is the same word for fat fucking Frenchman fleeing France for freedom.

That's a tongue twister. Here I was thinking entrepreneur itself had French roots. Oh, wait, it does.

 

[cheapseats]

i think the problem here is not the behavior, but the changing of the definitions of words...

Small = Tall

Wake up and smell the Starbucks.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

How about disgust at your judgement? Is that a sin you self righteous piece of shit? Suck a dick.

I always have to laugh at how aggressive and judgmental the supposedly "tolerant" ones are. He was just stating a fundamental tenet of Christianity, that you should not be proud of your sin, and somehow just because you don't have the same definition of sin, all of a sudden he is being judgmental. Apparently I missed the part where being tolerant meant chastising people for holding to one of the most fundamental tenets of Christian belief. I also apparently missed the part where being Christian and holding different moral values precluded you from being tolerant. The fact that a simple statement that not everything is honorable or acceptable would evoke such a strong response from you says a lot about your ability to tolerate other people having different moral beliefs. Why should we be forced to give up our idea of morality in order to meet your definition of tolerance?

Also, the term "judgment" is over-used.

 

[PierzStyx]

Just giving credit where credit is due. I never claimed to be perfect. What part of the Bible does calling someone a prick violate anyway? Did I ever hold myself up as a paragon of Christian virtues? I called him a prick because that's what he was being, as well as obnoxious. I imagine the sinfulness of calling someone a prick is somewhere along the lines of calling them a "buffoon."

That awkward moment when someone uses the phrase "That awkward moment" just to be witty...

Well actually, it is a sin. Matthew 5:22, calling someone a "fool" places you in danger of hellfire. I'm pretty sure its the same for prick.

 

[cheapseats]

Death often is welcomed.

Suicide statistics confirm this.

 

[cheapseats]

Death often is welcomed.

Suicide statistics confirm this.

United States Sees Highest Suicide Rate in 15 Years
https://bphope.com/Item.aspx/935/united-states-sees-highest-suicide-rate-in-15-years-

U.S. vets commit suicide at alarming rate: VA Study
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...suicide-alarming-rate-study-article-1.1253900

More soldier suicides than combat deaths in 2012
http://www.stripes.com/news/more-soldier-suicides-than-combat-deaths-in-2012-1.201440

I can't HEEEEAR the "pro life" crowd when it comes to QUALITY of life . . . other than the heartless insistence that IT'S UP TO THE INDIVIDUAL and, ironically, that unnecessary deaths of LIVING people do not rank with (arguably) unnecessary "killing" of the UNBORN.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Well actually, it is a sin. Matthew 5:22, calling someone a "fool" places you in danger of hellfire. I'm pretty sure its the same for prick.

First of all, the term Hell is widely misunderstood. Secondly, "sin" doesn't mean everything the Bible discourages. Did you know premarital sex is not a sin?

 

[cheapseats]

Small = Tall

Wake up and smell the Starbucks.

Starbucks: A case study examining power and culture
via radical sociodrama

Bob Batchelor and Kaitlin Krister, Kent State University​

http://www.prismjournal.org/fileadmin/9_2/Batchelor_Krister.pdf​

Morning Joe.

 

[erowe1]

Did you know premarital sex is not a sin?

I know this is a rabbit trail. But why do you say this?

 

[cheapseats]

Did you know premarital sex is not a sin?

I know this is a rabbit trail. But why do you say this?

Whether premarital sex is or is not a sin, it is NOT General Politics.

 

[cheapseats]

First of all, the term Hell is widely misunderstood.

Flip-side of the SUBJECTIVITY coin . . . heavy emphasis on COIN.

Confuse not "misunderstandings" with UNDERSTANDABLE DISAGREEMENTS.

The term GOD is widely "misunderstood", too.

Ditto, LIFE and LIBERTY.

 

[cheapseats]

If THREE MILLION Conscientious Objectors, less than ONE PERCENT of the population, would descend on Washington DC...kinduva Vatican West...with collective resolve about NO MORE WARS / END THE ONES WE'RE IN, I have complete confidence that "we" would NOT engage Iran or Syria or North Korea and that we would DISENGAGE from the war in Afghanistan and the OCCUPATION of Iraq.

Key to the Egyptian people's "success" was not that their dictator was worse than other dictators, but that they refused to take 'NO' for an answer.

WE'RE UNEMPLOYED. WE CAN KEEP THIS UP AS LONG AS YOU CAN.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I know this is a rabbit trail. But why do you say this?

I have a different view of sin than many Christians, which has been generalized as anything that is discouraged in the Bible. I believe the New Testament did not change anything in the Old Testament. That being said, the penalty of sin was always death in the OT. Therefore, it may not necessarily be wise or God's will, but if the penalty is not death, there is no sin. In the OT, if two people had sex and then did not get married, the man was required to pay some sort of fine to the girl's father. There are several reasons for this, not necessarily having anything to do with premarital sex being a sin. Maybe it wasn't the best example to use, but I believe it to be true nonetheless.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Flip-side of the SUBJECTIVITY coin . . . heavy emphasis on COIN.

Confuse not "misunderstandings" with UNDERSTANDABLE DISAGREEMENTS.

The term GOD is widely "misunderstood", too.

Ditto, LIFE and LIBERTY.

I call it a misunderstanding because I believe those who diisagree are wrong. Of course, it's not politically correct to admit that you think you are right anymore.

 

[KingNothing]

the world of heaven and hell- with god as judge, leaves me with a view that life is a test of being righteous and staying on a true path to god. right or wrong?
heaven is a life after death. right or wrong?
we are born without sin. right or wrong?
if we are born without sin, it is the risk of life to loose our soul through bad choices. right or wrong?
thus, the quickest path to god is to die as a baby. right or wrong?

Only if a pedophile in a robe has poured water on the baby's head before it dies, though.