Options

inter-religious marriage

123468

Posts

  • Options
    Burden of ProofBurden of Proof You three boys picked a beautiful hill to die on. Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    reVerse wrote: »
    I find it amusing that Hippy said that he hoped his conversation with the family might have triggered something in the children's heads. I only find this amusing, because it reminded me of one of the reasons I really got deep into the church for a little while. It wasn't that their logical arguments were so mind-bogglingly convincing but that they were very accepting and kind people.

    I can't reasonably say whether or not he portrayed himself in an "accepting and kind" manner while berating the beliefs of these people, but I can say that he probably did nothing but gently push them back towards their established beliefs. Especially if it was the shouting match he made it sound like.

    But surely, while he was fanatically shrieking at them, they must've recognised that he was completely rational and logical. I mean, really, what else do you need?

    You're both completely mischaracterizing my behavior. I love how one asshole says that I'm a fanatic and everybody else assumes that I'm a frothing-at-the-mouth lunatic without even knowing me. Good job. Now stop, assholes.

    I made no such insinuation.

    You said there was shouting and ranting going on, not me. I've made no assumptions beyond those which you've clearly stated yourself, and I certainly possess no deeply-ingrained image of you as a mouth-frothing lunatic.

    Stop looking for excuses to insult me, please. I'm not in the least bit interested.

    Get off your high horse when you're just making shit up, chief. It doesn't look good when you're wrong. Not only was there not shouting and ranting, the only people to suggest that there was were people that barely even know me on these boards, let alone in person. So back the fuck off. I never said such thing. You're making shit up.

    Fair enough, if you're that upset about it I'll simply concede and say that you're right.

    Cool?

    Burden of Proof on
  • Options
    Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2008
    Fair enough, if you're that upset about it I'll simply concede and say that you're right.

    Cool?

    No, that's not the way things work you dodgy piece of shit. You said something that was factually incorrect. When I caught it, I let you know. Now you're trying to come out of this thinking that you're better than me and that you're still fundamentally right. Read my posts. I never said that. You're making shit up.

    Wonder_Hippie on
  • Options
    geckahngeckahn Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    I can't reasonably say whether or not he portrayed himself in an "accepting and kind" manner while berating the beliefs of these people, but I can say that he probably did nothing but gently push them back towards their established beliefs. Especially if it was the shouting match he made it sound like.

    Hey, WonderHippie - that right there is what youre getting so worked up over?

    He's really not making anything up. He wandered out a little farther then he should but he didnt say that you flipped out on them.

    You need to learn how to calm the fuck down.

    geckahn on
  • Options
    Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2008
    geckahn wrote: »
    I can't reasonably say whether or not he portrayed himself in an "accepting and kind" manner while berating the beliefs of these people, but I can say that he probably did nothing but gently push them back towards their established beliefs. Especially if it was the shouting match he made it sound like.

    Hey, WonderHippie - that right there is what youre getting so worked up over?

    He's really not making anything up. He wandered out a little farther then he should but he didnt say that you flipped out on them.

    You need to learn how to calm the fuck down.

    It was more the reply to him, but he's maintaining his condescending tone. I'm not going to calm down because most of what people think about me in this thread is because of one person, and people are running with it. I have a problem with this. Considering this thread has strayed off topic for however many pagees and focused solely on my assumed shortcomings despite my request for it to be left the fuck out, I have a good God damned reason to be pissed off.

    Wonder_Hippie on
  • Options
    geckahngeckahn Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    He's not being condescending. really.

    geckahn on
  • Options
    shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    jack eddy wrote: »
    My god, what have I created!?

    :lol:

    What did you think would happen?

    Any thread even tangentially related to religion goes like this in D&D. Hell, you even put "religious" in the thread title.

    That the thread lasted like 4 pages before it devolved is something you should be proud of. It's a hell of a feat.

    shryke on
  • Options
    Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2008
    Stop looking for excuses to insult me, please. I'm not in the least bit interested.

    Then just what the fuck is that?

    Wonder_Hippie on
  • Options
    geckahngeckahn Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Stop looking for excuses to insult me, please. I'm not in the least bit interested.

    Then just what the fuck is that?

    Truth.

    geckahn on
  • Options
    Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2008
    geckahn wrote: »
    Stop looking for excuses to insult me, please. I'm not in the least bit interested.

    Then just what the fuck is that?

    Truth.

    I'm looking for a reason to insult him when he misrepresents an event he has only heard the most scant details of? Try again.

    Wonder_Hippie on
  • Options
    Burden of ProofBurden of Proof You three boys picked a beautiful hill to die on. Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Fair enough, if you're that upset about it I'll simply concede and say that you're right.

    Cool?

    No, that's not the way things work you dodgy piece of shit. You said something that was factually incorrect. When I caught it, I let you know. Now you're trying to come out of this thinking that you're better than me and that you're still fundamentally right. Read my posts. I never said that. You're making shit up.

    Oh, no, I agree.

    It's already settled and you've been proven right.

    I hope this appeases you, friend.

    edit:
    I've just come under the realization that you don't seem to realize I'm pocking fun at you, so seriously, you're right. I suppose I saw something in your post that wasn't there. Sorry it happened.

    Burden of Proof on
  • Options
    armageddonboundarmageddonbound Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    For the record I'm on Wonder-hippies side. If you are going to tell people the moon is made out of cheese and that anyone who doesn't agree is a degenerate that will burn in magic fire for eternity I'm going to tell you and your listeners what a complete idiot you are. (insert whatever other crazy ideas someone has and the same thing goes).

    I'm a little perplexed when people always say "Never talk about subjects W-Z because no one is capable of changing their minds!". It's simply not true. I've changed my mind and I would be scared for anyone without the ability for intellectual growth.

    armageddonbound on
  • Options
    MikeManMikeMan Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Ding ding ding. We have a winner.

    Nothing is sacred.

    MikeMan on
  • Options
    shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Yeah, but there's ways to broach a subject that work, and ways that don't.

    Getting vitriolic, which I am NOT saying Wonder-Hippie did, won't accomplish anything.

    shryke on
  • Options
    KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    shryke wrote: »
    Yeah, but there's ways to broach a subject that work, and ways that don't.

    Getting vitriolic, which I am NOT saying Wonder-Hippie did, won't accomplish anything.

    So being hostile when trying to persuade people is bad, thanks for the tip.

    And here I thought you had to admire, joke, boast, and coerce in a certain order to make someone listen to you.

    Kagera on
    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • Options
    shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Kagera wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Yeah, but there's ways to broach a subject that work, and ways that don't.

    Getting vitriolic, which I am NOT saying Wonder-Hippie did, won't accomplish anything.

    So being hostile when trying to persuade people is bad, thanks for the tip.

    And here I thought you had to admire, joke, boast, and coerce in a certain order to make someone listen to you.

    I'm glad this thread has made you a more informed person.

    shryke on
  • Options
    KonovaKonova Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Take precautions to not become a fanatic in your informedness.

    Konova on
    "It's not murder, it's surprise death!"
  • Options
    Apothe0sisApothe0sis Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality? Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    I like Wonder_Hippie and you guys are all squirmy fucks.

    Apothe0sis on
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2008
    I don't think most people are allowed to up and start calling people pieces of shit without recourse when there's supposed to be reasoned-debate, but then I also don't think Wonder_Hippie is an interesting thread-topic. So tell me, since sacrilege is a valid reason to legally bar a couple from marrying as it stands, why would we allow inter-religious marriages without requiring full-conversions beforehand?

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    Burden of ProofBurden of Proof You three boys picked a beautiful hill to die on. Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Because it's not gross?

    Burden of Proof on
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2008
    Because it's not gross?

    It's not banned for being gross, you're thinking of the version of late-term abortions that don't frequently cause the need for emergency hysterectomies.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    Burden of ProofBurden of Proof You three boys picked a beautiful hill to die on. Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    No, seriously...I think subliminally, people feeling that it's sort of "gross" is one of the main reasons the inevitable hasn't occurred yet.

    I mean, if it was really based so much on religion, we wouldn't endorse divorce so much.

    Burden of Proof on
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2008
    No, seriously...I think subliminally, people feeling that it's sort of "gross" is one of the main reasons the inevitable hasn't occurred yet.

    I mean, if it was really based so much on religion, we wouldn't endorse divorce so much.

    Yeah but you can't justify a movement to amend a constitution subliminally.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    SithDrummerSithDrummer Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    So tell me, since sacrilege is a valid reason to legally bar a couple from marrying as it stands, why would we allow inter-religious marriages without requiring full-conversions beforehand?
    Wait, what?

    SithDrummer on
  • Options
    FellhandFellhand Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    So tell me, since sacrilege is a valid reason to legally bar a couple from marrying as it stands, why would we allow inter-religious marriages without requiring full-conversions beforehand?
    Wait, what?

    That's what I said.

    Fellhand on
  • Options
    AndorienAndorien Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    I think it should be read as
    since sacrilege is apparently a valid reason to legally bar a couple from marrying as it stands

    Andorien on
  • Options
    shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    I still don't know WTF VC is talking about.

    shryke on
  • Options
    geckahngeckahn Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Most modern nations have abandoned laws against sacrilege out of respect for freedom of expression, save in cases where there is an injury to persons or property. In the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court case Burstyn v. Wilson (1952) struck down a statute against sacrilege, ruling that the term could not be narrowly defined in a way that would safeguard against the establishment of one church over another, and that such statutes infringed upon the free exercise of religion and freedom of expression.

    Despite their decriminalization, sacrilegious acts are still often regarded with public opprobrium, even by non-adherents of the offended religion, especially when these acts are perceived as manifestations of hatred toward a particular sect or creed.


    Sp, VC is . . . totally wrong? Or just very confused.

    geckahn on
  • Options
    shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    What do we mean by "sacrilege" in this case?

    shryke on
  • Options
    geckahngeckahn Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Sacrilege is the violation or injurious treatment of a sacred object. In a less proper sense, any transgression against the virtue of religion would be a sacrilege. It can come in the form of irreverence to sacred persons, places, and things. When the sacrilegious offense is verbal, it is called blasphemy. The term originates from the Latin sacer, sacred, and legere, to steal, as in Roman times it referred to the plundering of temples and graves. By the time of Cicero, sacrilege had adopted a more expansive meaning, including verbal offenses against religion and undignified treatment of sacred objects.

    Thats the actual definition. I think he may have been trying to refer to gay marriage? or something?

    geckahn on
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2008
    geckahn wrote: »
    Sacrilege is the violation or injurious treatment of a sacred object. In a less proper sense, any transgression against the virtue of religion would be a sacrilege. It can come in the form of irreverence to sacred persons, places, and things. When the sacrilegious offense is verbal, it is called blasphemy. The term originates from the Latin sacer, sacred, and legere, to steal, as in Roman times it referred to the plundering of temples and graves. By the time of Cicero, sacrilege had adopted a more expansive meaning, including verbal offenses against religion and undignified treatment of sacred objects.

    Thats the actual definition. I think he may have been trying to refer to gay marriage? or something?

    Yes. Gay marriage is illegal in most states on the grounds that it is a violation or injurious treatment of a sacred entity, in this case marriage. Hence the "Protection of Marriage Act" and the "marriage is a sacred institution" argument. There are only a small handful of religions that call divorce outright unacceptable, most let you say you're sorry and point to the marriage to a person you can't effectively be married to as the mistake rather than the divorce. However not very many religions allow you to marry someone of a conflicting faith (which most define as "any faith other than this one") without the expectation that you try to convert them and insistence that you raise any resulting children within the "correct" church.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Considering in the Bible itself people had more than one wife and relatives married each other, etc etc saying that "marriage has always been between a man and a woman" is a pretty ignorant thing to say.

    DarkPrimus on
  • Options
    ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2008
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Considering in the Bible itself people had more than one wife and relatives married each other, etc etc saying that "marriage has always been between a man and a woman" is a pretty ignorant thing to say.

    Well it's just flat false regardless of the bible, but that's not the point. The bible identifies plenty of shit that went on in the past as heresy, it's more about "God says don't do this" than historical precedent.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Options
    Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    For the record I'm on Wonder-hippies side. If you are going to tell people the moon is made out of cheese and that anyone who doesn't agree is a degenerate that will burn in magic fire for eternity I'm going to tell you and your listeners what a complete idiot you are. (insert whatever other crazy ideas someone has and the same thing goes).
    Yeah, and that's great and all, but berating the beliefs of your girlfriend's family in front of her grandmother, regardless of how loud you get, is horribly rude and stupid.

    Salvation122 on
  • Options
    Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    For the record I'm on Wonder-hippies side. If you are going to tell people the moon is made out of cheese and that anyone who doesn't agree is a degenerate that will burn in magic fire for eternity I'm going to tell you and your listeners what a complete idiot you are. (insert whatever other crazy ideas someone has and the same thing goes).
    Yeah, and that's great and all, but berating the beliefs of your girlfriend's family in front of her grandmother, regardless of how loud you get, is horribly rude and stupid.


    Unless you're entirely convinced of your own correctness, in which case it's OK.

    Regina Fong on
  • Options
    MikeManMikeMan Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    jeepguy wrote: »
    For the record I'm on Wonder-hippies side. If you are going to tell people the moon is made out of cheese and that anyone who doesn't agree is a degenerate that will burn in magic fire for eternity I'm going to tell you and your listeners what a complete idiot you are. (insert whatever other crazy ideas someone has and the same thing goes).
    Yeah, and that's great and all, but berating the beliefs of your girlfriend's family in front of her grandmother, regardless of how loud you get, is horribly rude and stupid.


    Unless you're entirely convinced of your own correctness, in which case it's OK.

    Some beliefs are really bad, okay?

    MikeMan on
  • Options
    Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2008
    Jeeps, that would be such an awesome post if the veracity of my statements, such as "the earth is not 6,000 years old," was what has been called into question. Unfortunately, it's not, and you're just making yourself look like an ignorant fucking simp again.

    So, for the last time, take your little personal grudge against me out of this thread. This thread has absolutely nothing to do with me, but despite my requests, you insist on bringing it back to that subject. So just fucking stop. Stop being a douche. Just stop it.

    Wonder_Hippie on
  • Options
    geckahngeckahn Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Shouldn't that have been directed at Salvation?

    Or do you have a grudge? hmmmm?

    geckahn on
  • Options
    Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Jeeps, that would be such an awesome post if the veracity of my statements, such as "the earth is not 6,000 years old," was what has been called into question. Unfortunately, it's not, and you're just making yourself look like an ignorant fucking simp again.

    So, for the last time, take your little personal grudge against me out of this thread. This thread has absolutely nothing to do with me, but despite my requests, you insist on bringing it back to that subject. So just fucking stop. Stop being a douche. Just stop it.

    My comment is meant to apply to the religious beliefs of anyone who feels unshakably correct in their views and feels need to share them with others. You take it personally because you want to.

    Regina Fong on
  • Options
    Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS regular
    edited June 2008
    jeepguy wrote: »
    Jeeps, that would be such an awesome post if the veracity of my statements, such as "the earth is not 6,000 years old," was what has been called into question. Unfortunately, it's not, and you're just making yourself look like an ignorant fucking simp again.

    So, for the last time, take your little personal grudge against me out of this thread. This thread has absolutely nothing to do with me, but despite my requests, you insist on bringing it back to that subject. So just fucking stop. Stop being a douche. Just stop it.

    My comment is meant to apply to the religious beliefs of anyone who feels unshakably correct in their views and feels need to share them with others. You take it personally because you want to.

    SCIENCE IS NOT A RELIGIOUS BELIEF. STOP BEING A FUCKING MORON.

    Wonder_Hippie on
  • Options
    MikeManMikeMan Registered User regular
    edited June 2008
    Hippie, calm the fuck down.

    MikeMan on
Sign In or Register to comment.