Excellent, Stim. Beat me to the punch.

(August 16, 2013 at 2:52 am)Stimbo Wrote: I asked:

"what's the problem with allowing same-sex couples to marry, get their relationship recognised officially and then express whatever damn feelings they want

Show me where I said they can't. Then I can answer your question. Do you see now? I can not answer what you asked because I never took the position your 'question' put me in. I just assumed that you knew you're making crap up about what i believed as you go.

I don't care what gay people do in this or any soceity. My only problem is when people like gansta spock over try and dictate what is and is not 'Christian' doctrine.

Quote:I never said you don't know the answers. I merely pointed out you were avoiding them. You still are.

Because I am still under the assumption that you know your asking a baited question.

Quote:And you are using them as red herrings.

Because I will not acknoweledge you when you're guilty of begging the question? Come-on stimmy (Two m's right?) you know better than that.

Quote:Technically part of the show?!

As in did not follow the flow or format/theme of the rest of the show. the whole show was based on songs skits and muppet themed reenactments, of other shows and or movies. S&W was a departure from the rest of the show. A break or an abutment segmented or divided the show up into parts.

Quote: You write as though the characters' routines were unscripted, like they were an actual double act that just wandered in and heckled everybody. Okay, I'll bite. I'm Statler (or Waldorf, whichever you prefer). You can be Gonzo, always trying to do something he can't and continually fucking up. Or maybe you're Fozzy, the perenially unfunny comic.

See? I can play too.

Quote:Oh and please learn the difference between "apart" and "a part". The two couldn't be more opposite if they were matter and antimatter.

are you being ironic or oblivious? This is exactly what i am talking about.

Quote:And what precisely did I put "it"? I asked a couple of questions, developed a progression of enquiry, and tried being nice. Wasted effort, apparently, if all you're going to do is throw it back in my face. What is it with you theists lately?

a heckle and jeckle non sequiter observation, that puts the brakes on the rest of the show/discussion. In this case a retorical/question begging statement, that misrepersents my position on homosexual marriage.

You put the brakes on my discussion with a side stepping question So, why can't I do the same to you?

---

(August 16, 2013 at 4:01 pm)Maelstrom Wrote:

(August 16, 2013 at 3:56 pm)Drich Wrote: Eveyone that i read was either a context error or an intentional misinterpertation of the translation.

I am fairly certain you are the one who is misinterpreting with those rose colored glasses.

they may just be ignorant. Most people like that think or at least approach the bible as if it were orginally written in King James english. and not Konie Greek or Hebrew. As such they make no allowances for cultural differences or translative difficulties.

---

(August 16, 2013 at 4:09 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Excellent, Stim. Beat me to the punch.

See you two belong in a balcony seat together, where you can make critical comments about everything. that way you can still be apart of the 'show' and not actually have to contribute anything of substance.

In that case you meant "apart from", not "apart of", if you want to be understood. Language is a tool that can and ought to be wielded with sublime surgical skill; you seem to be having trouble with the hammer.

Nothing else you said merits a response. I'm not in the mood for chasing rabbits down holes.

Quote:you can still be apart (sic) of the 'show' and not actually have to contribute anything of substance.

Says the man who believes in invisible sky daddies and demons.

Back to sleep, little Drippy. Perhaps you will dream of your fucking heaven?

Leviticus plainly states that if a man lies with another man, it is an abomination. If Jesus did away with the law of Moses, how is this still an abomination, as the NT after the Gospels+Acts tries to put forth? I think this was one of my questions that you never answered, Drich. You gave me some passages to look over, swell, but you seemed to think that your justification in Cherry Picking gave you permission to glaze over my concern that I posited at you. You do believe the Law of Moses was put away, don't you?

---

Maybe it's just too tough to answer because who in their right mind can make complete sense of a book full of contradictions and lies?

Dritch may or may not be surprised quite how many of his troubles being understood come about by bad use of the English language contrasted with how many come about by his arguments being nonsensical. I would have trouble picking, I think.

Ahem guys, I know you are all very passionate discussing things, but please take care of your post editing as to not leave orphaned quote tags. It may propagate to posts quoted 'a posteriori' making one hell of a mess for us mods to clean.

More info on using tags on our BBcode guide.

I would really like to see your answer to the last post, just how do you decide, of all the almost infinite threads possible from "holy writings" which you believe to be the right one? BTW, do you believe the bible to be (forgot the term) absolutely and totally correct? Finally, I am new to the forum, but would certainly like to see you keep on giving your side of things, in fact maybe you could recruit some others willing to stand up for what they believe.

(September 4, 2013 at 4:18 pm)Whitey Wrote: (forgot the term)

Infallible?

Good answer, I think inerrant is the one I was trying to remember, but either works fine, right.