Christian Objections to Serving Same Sex Couples are Disingenuous

[whag]

Which fits in with the rest of them.

Immaterial. You're just trying to distract from the very pertinent points that Christians have been bringing up to LeaC by attacking their characters. Your attempts are transparent, but for those who cannot see I have exposed them to light. Now begone.

You wish I'd go away with that archaic command. That's not the way the world works.

[Spartacus]

Whag, I asked you why you judged mossrose's warning as self-righteous rather than a sincere?

I don't see why those two descriptors must be mutually exclusive. He could be accusing her of being sincerely (and therefore all the more insufferably) self-righteous.

[Paprika]

You wish I'd go away with that archaic command. That's not the way the world works.

My my, the dog returns to his own vomit. I'm not merely wishing; I'm telling you to go away which, by the way, is also for your own good.

But if you choose the worse path: to stay and continue your attacks and distractions, I'll just keep exposing the darkness that drives you to such lengths. Your choice.

[whag]

Whag, I asked you why you judged mossrose's warning as self-righteous rather than a sincere?

They aren't mutually exclusive, which is the scary part. Sincerity of belief in this context is irrelevent to my observation it's hackneyed and lazy.

Tom Cruise is sincere. Ditto Ken Ham. Not impressed.

[Paprika]

They aren't mutually exclusive, which is the scary part. Sincerity of belief in this context is irrelevent to my observation it's hackneyed and lazy.

Self-righteousness is irrelevant to the truth of what is said, but you keep throwing that around because your aim is to attack and distract.

[JonathanL]

Really?

Really.

[whag]

My my, the dog returns to his own vomit. I'm not merely wishing; I'm telling you to go away which, by the way, is also for your own good.

But if you choose the worse path: to stay and continue your attacks and distractions, I'll just keep exposing the darkness that drives you to such lengths. Your choice.

So long as it protracts your hilarious self-righteous dialogue--as it's clearly doing here--that's beyond cool with me.

[Spartacus]

They aren't mutually exclusive, which is the scary part. Sincerity of belief in this context is irrelevent to my observation it's hackneyed and lazy.

Tom Cruise is sincere. Ditto Ken Ham. Not impressed.

Timestamp on my post is 1 minute before yours. I claim credit.

[Paprika]

So long as it protracts your hilarious self-righteous dialogue--as it's clearly doing here--that's beyond cool with me.

Yes, you are 'cool' with attacking the opponents' character to distract instead of actually engaging. No one has doubted that.

[whag]

Timestamp on my post is 1 minute before yours. I claim credit.

=) Yes but who gave the sweet examples? It's a draw in my book. =P

[JonathanL]

Whag, I asked you why you judged mossrose's warning as self-righteous rather than a sincere?

Aside from the fact that he has no authority to speak on this issue, the issue is not that he judged mossrose's warning to be self-righteous* rather than sincere, the issue is that he judged mossrose's warning to be self-righteous without any basis in reality.



*Which, to be quite frank, coming from such a vehement enemy of the faith such as whag should be viewed as something positive.

[whag]

Self-righteousness is irrelevant to the truth of what is said, but you keep throwing that around because your aim is to attack and distract.

My aim was to show how badly you bungled it in light of her admirable expression of honesty.

[Paprika]

My aim was to show how badly you bungled it in light of her admirable expression of honesty.

Yes, she was completely open about her own desire not to face the truth. Which, of course, calls for exposure of her self-dishonesty; I am only happy to provide.

[whag]

Aside from the fact that he has no authority to speak on this issue, the issue is not that he judged mossrose's warning to be self-righteous* rather than sincere, the issue is that he judged mossrose's warning to be self-righteous without any basis in reality.



*Which, to be quite frank, coming from such a vehement enemy of the faith such as whag should be viewed as something positive.

Yes, chances are her concern is concocted. If it were real, she'd have used her brains and figured out her self-righteous warning tends to dull by repetition.

That applies to all religions that issue similar veiled threats. It's a human thing, unfortunately, and not limited to Christianity.

[whag]

Yes, she was completely open about her own desire not to face the truth. Which, of course, calls for exposure of her self-dishonesty; I am only happy to provide.

I'd be very surprised if your approach convinced her she's lying to herself by not being convinced same sex attraction is evil.

If that's the case, and your sloppy approach did convince her you're right, I'd admonish her to investigate further and not take a hack's word for it. I'd probably point to your taking 2 peter 2:22 completely out of context as one point of evidence for that.