Defense Of Marriage Act Ruled Unconstitutional By Second Federal Judge

Granule said:
I'm going to disagree with you afterall. "Hardness of heart" covers a lot more than just sexual immorality. If your spouse becomes a convicted felon for murder, grand larceny or any other major crime, then that's certainly grounds for divorce.
Click to expand...


That's nice and all but you've YET to explain how, precisely, homosexuals being allowed to marry will destroy the sanctity of marriage...
 
Granule said:
I know your political standing, Beejie, which is very telling. What more could I possibly need to know, than what is already known? You truly have nothing to give, Bijou. I'm sorry you had to hear this from me.

And my opinion, at the very least, carries as much weight as yours. ;)
Click to expand...

Your ill-informed generalizations about others say all that anyone needs to know about you. :)
 
Oh wow how'd I miss this thread? This is awesome. I love the phrase "paint chip eaters"! And the first five pages consist of a yurt spaz meltdown, typical. Lot's of fun! Granule I have on IA, a bore.
 
Darla said:
Oh wow how'd I miss this thread? This is awesome. I love the phrase "paint chip eaters"! And the first five pages consist of a yurt spaz meltdown, typical. Lot's of fun! Granule I have on IA, a bore.
Click to expand...
I miss you Darla. Will someone please tell Darla that I miss her?
 
actually you are all on shaky ground when it comes to interpreting these chapters in Matthew......the point he was making was that the Jews were foolish to think they were righteous simply because they were doing what the Pharisees told them was acceptable under the law....the simple fact is there is no one sin which is greater or worse than another and there is no human who doesn't sin daily.....
 
This:

PostmodernProphet said:
actually you are all on shaky ground when it comes to interpreting these chapters in Matthew....
Click to expand...

...only matters to believers in the Bible, and those of us (me) who referred to the chapters Matthew and Luke only did so for the benefit of the believer Granule who claims to be Christian despite his abhorrently un-Christian conduct on this forum.


..the point he was making was that the Jews were foolish to think they were righteous simply because they were doing what the Pharisees told them was acceptable under the law....the simple fact is there is no one sin which is greater or worse than another and there is no human who doesn't sin daily.....
Click to expand...

Yawn. Irrelevant to the godless liberals.
 
Bijou said:
...only matters to believers in the Bible, and those of us (me) who referred to the chapters Matthew and Luke only did so for the benefit of the believer Granule who claims to be Christian despite his abhorrently un-Christian conduct on this forum.
Click to expand...

but you see, that's what clued me in on the fact you didn't understand what those chapters actually meant.....they weren't written for you to use as a blunt instrument on Christians......the opposite was true.....they were intended to tell us that no one has complied with the law.....the net effect of telling a Christian that they are required to act like Christ instructed in those chapters is to leave you looking like a dimwitted fool.......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
but you see, that's what clued me in on the fact you didn't understand what those chapters actually meant.....they weren't written for you to use as a blunt instrument on Christians......the opposite was true.....they were intended to tell us that no one has complied with the law.....the net effect of telling a Christian that they are required to act like Christ instructed in those chapters is to leave you looking like a dimwitted fool.......
Click to expand...

....blah, blah, blah...

Right. Sez you.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
???...yes, and most of Christianity.....
Click to expand...

Actually, no.

Again, you stupidly and wrongly assume that I have no understanding of Christianity and/or the Bible, based on differing interpretations of both. You also have no idea of my experiences related to religion generally and Christianity specifically, so like a typical, obedient and sanctimonious bible-thumper, you spout off ignorantly about what you think you know about my interpretations. My interpretations of scripture aren't up for debate, as I'm sure yours aren't, either.

Here's the thing about your interpretations of scripture: they're largely irrelevant to me personally and as it relates to this discussion, they're completely irrelevant. When the rights of others are sought to be denied based on biblical bullshit, you lose me - and countless others. In other words, biblical justification for bigotry is anathema to everything Christianity and Jesus supposedly represent and personify.

In other words, blather on for the whack jobs because, rest assured - the sane people here stopped reading quite a while ago.
 
Bijou said:
Actually, no.

Again, you stupidly and wrongly assume that I have no understanding of Christianity and/or the Bible, based on differing interpretations of both. You also have no idea of my experiences related to religion generally and Christianity specifically, so like a typical, obedient and sanctimonious bible-thumper, you spout off ignorantly about what you think you know about my interpretations. My interpretations of scripture aren't up for debate, as I'm sure yours aren't, either.

Here's the thing about your interpretations of scripture: they're largely irrelevant to me personally and as it relates to this discussion, they're completely irrelevant. When the rights of others are sought to be denied based on biblical bullshit, you lose me - and countless others. In other words, biblical justification for bigotry is anathema to everything Christianity and Jesus supposedly represent and personify.

In other words, blather on for the whack jobs because, rest assured - the sane people here stopped reading quite a while ago.
Click to expand...

and yet, you were the one who brought the Sermon on the Mount into this discussion.....now, when I point out your error, you object to discussing it......why don't you just admit you're out of your area of competence and leave it at that......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
and yet, you were the one who brought the Sermon on the Mount into this discussion.....now, when I point out your error, you object to discussing it......why don't you just admit you're out of your area of competence and leave it at that......
Click to expand...

I brought it up for Granule's benefit. He needed to be reminded of who and what he was supposed to be emulating.

Too tough for ya?

You're dismissed. :D

Next......
 
Bijou said:
He needed to be reminded of who and what he was supposed to be emulating.
Click to expand...

which was precisely why I pointed out the error of using those passages to remind someone else what you thought they were supposed to be doing......(I love it when an argument completes itself).......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
which was precisely why I pointed out the error of using those passages to remind someone else what you thought they were supposed to be doing......(I love it when an argument completes itself).......
Click to expand...

No error. You interpret it differently. The teachings are clear. That they're lost on you is unsurprising.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top