Re: Coalition For Marriage : Tue May 22, 2012 8:35 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

For the last few weeks, kirkstaller has totally avoided responding to any of the arguments I have put to him.

Of course he/she has, they don't deal in facts.

Re: Coalition For Marriage : Tue May 22, 2012 8:35 am  

Hull White Star wrote:

So let me get this straight....God is happy for me as a woman, to spread the good news far and wide, to teach the word to all who'll listen, but as a woman God is not happy for me to spread the good news and teach the word in a Church? Funny old god you have there, not to mention hypocritical and sexist.

Unless, of course, you talk to any one of the equally strident adherents of the same flavour of religion who however are certain that god has told them it's fine for women to preach in Church; of course. Kirkstaller would denounce them as deluded sinners, and they would similarly view kirkstaller.

It's just these sort of spats which should ring bells in the thickest of heads that there's something nutty about all this stuff, but sadly it rarely seems to happen.

Re: Coalition For Marriage : Tue May 22, 2012 8:43 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

... of course. Kirkstaller would denounce them as deluded sinners ...

Or apostates.

Re: Coalition For Marriage : Tue May 22, 2012 9:42 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

For the last few weeks, kirkstaller has totally avoided responding to any of the arguments I have put to him. I conclude that he is an ass-hole.

What arguments have I avoided?

And by avoiding do you actually mean not conceding my own position?

Re: Coalition For Marriage : Tue May 22, 2012 9:44 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Unless, of course, you talk to any one of the equally strident adherents of the same flavour of religion who however are certain that god has told them it's fine for women to preach in Church; of course. Kirkstaller would denounce them as deluded sinners, and they would similarly view kirkstaller.

I'd like to know what those equally strident religious people have based their beliefs on. It's certainly not the Bible.

And I wouldn't call them sinners for it. We are all sinners, how many times do I have to tell you that?

Re: Coalition For Marriage : Tue May 22, 2012 9:45 am  

Mintball wrote:

Or apostates.

Much more likely.

Re: Coalition For Marriage : Tue May 22, 2012 9:55 am  

kirkstaller wrote:

I'd like to know what those equally strident religious people have based their beliefs on. It's certainly not the Bible...

'Look at me! Look at me! I'm right and nobody else is! God didn't speak to anyone else – even if they say so – if I disagree with them. Because God only spoke to me which is why I'm right and almost nobody else is'.

This is a crazy combination of delusion and a sort of public masturbation.

Re: Coalition For Marriage : Tue May 22, 2012 9:58 am  

Mintball wrote:

public masturbation.

That's definitely a sin. The security guard in Dorothy Perkins told me.

Re: Coalition For Marriage : Tue May 22, 2012 9:59 am  

Mintball wrote:

'Look at me! Look at me! I'm right and nobody else is! God didn't speak to anyone else – even if they say so – if I disagree with them. Because God only spoke to me which is why I'm right and almost nobody else is'.

This is a crazy combination of delusion and a sort of public masturbation.

God couldn't be bothered with Mother Teresa but he's got time from a socially deprived northener.

Facts Kirkstaller, we only deal in them.

Re: Coalition For Marriage : Tue May 22, 2012 10:00 am  

kirkstaller wrote:

What arguments have I avoided?

And by avoiding do you actually mean not conceding my own position?

Mine for a start. Why am I good enough to spread the word outside the church but good enough to do it inside the church?