*rolls eyes* Always with the paedophiles.
So tell me, why don't YOU excplain what the Golden rule means, if not "treat other people the way you want to be treated"?
I've already stated there are areas where it gets tricky in cases of greatest good for greatest number and self defence, feel...
The Golden rule applies to ALL human interaction to determine what is, and isn't ethical.
You don't need to addd a whole bunch of arbitrary legalism on top of it. It works perfectly in its simplicity. Thats what's so divine about it. Once you start trying to make arbitrary rules to go on it as...
It only takes one genuine monogomous couple to make all arguments for recognition of homosexual marriage valid.
I don't believe ANYTHING is a sin "because the Bible says". What a terrifying universe to live in, if one believed in such an arbitrary, illogical God!
If you like strawman cake...
Sure. Because it seems to explain the behaviour. That or defence of a priori beliefs. Not a lot else seems to explain it.
Ever hear of;
Billy James Hargis
John Leslee Prescott
The list goes...
Oh, OK. Missed that bit.
I guess you could take it as a threat. Or you could take it as sound advice. The rules ARE, after all, fairly clear on the matter of saying people aren't "real" Christians... so if you, or anyone else, don't make such judgements of others, its not really going to be an...
Not meant to talk about mod decisions in open threads... PM me and I'll send you my "staff contact" list.
Funny, I frequently think the same thing about those pasting hatred and bigotry.
Still don't see the "threat" though.
Really? What thread were you reading?
The "Rome and Greece fell because homosexuality was accptible there" is a routinely posted PRATT, by many posters, in many of these threads. In deed, I'd go so far as to say I'm pretty sure I remember YOU making such claims yourself.
Explain to me why...
Indeed. But how to get past the cognitive disonance that convinces them they are right?
(Fun note, the primary symptom of cognitive disonance? Illogical non sequitor type responses to questions or information that draws attention to conflicting prefered beliefs. Sound familiar?)
I'm sure its already been pointed out, but just for fun... Greece and Rome didn't fall during the period when homosexuality was generally accepted by society. Indeed, they both suffered their "fall" and general reversion to barbarisim later, noteabley, after their conversion to Christianity...
How does "I subscribe to the idea of 'love one another as you yourself would be loved'" (i.e. I wouldn't want to be murdered, so I won't murder, I wouldn't want to be raped, so I won't rape) equate to "anything goes"?
Its one of the most non sequiter-y "logic" shifts I see around here.