en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/702826 Comments by AceRimmer http://www.komonews.com/sports/Sounders-winless-streak-continues-after-4-1-loss-to-Montreal-159324395.html?clmob=y#IDComment382798900 "Nasty tackle," more like a blown call. The inconsistency by this referee was horrible. Still the Sounders didn't play like a good team. The passing was sloppy, they got off to slow starts at the beginning of both halves, and the defense gave up open shots. The bad calls just turned a rough game into a no-contest flop. Sun, 17 Jun 2012 03:06:47 +0000 http://www.komonews.com/sports/Sounders-winless-streak-continues-after-4-1-loss-to-Montreal-159324395.html?clmob=y#IDComment382798900 http://www.komonews.com/news/local/House-committee-advances-gay-marriage-bill-138790949.html#IDComment290129921 Evangelicals are on the other side of the issue. Who else is to make a case to defend their theology? Likewise, Ehrman is on the opposite side of the debate and obviously comes from a polarized view. Should his criticism be thrown out, just because? Metzger certainly differed on the idea of divine inspiration of scripture. Also, to get to the heart of it all, what "alteration" specifically exists that remains in our current Bible translations AND fundamentally changes doctrine? Sun, 12 Feb 2012 02:02:26 +0000 http://www.komonews.com/news/local/House-committee-advances-gay-marriage-bill-138790949.html#IDComment290129921 http://www.komonews.com/news/local/House-committee-advances-gay-marriage-bill-138790949.html#IDComment290118681 And in the next sentence you accuse me of hatred again, against people I have never met, which was a proposition you deemed absurd not too long ago. The problem here, if you truly believe that people have, "absolutely no control over who they are," is of starkly different worldviews. In your view, there is no God, and therefore no divine basis for morality, and humans are merely soulless, choiceless, complicated machines. For instance, by your standards, lust could not be immoral. After all, sexual attraction is just a "natural" part of the human existance, but it is, in fact, immoral. Why? Because people are more than just biological machinery. Sun, 12 Feb 2012 01:46:50 +0000 http://www.komonews.com/news/local/House-committee-advances-gay-marriage-bill-138790949.html#IDComment290118681 http://www.komonews.com/news/local/House-committee-advances-gay-marriage-bill-138790949.html#IDComment290118548 I can see we have made little to no progress here. "Show me one shred of valid scientific evidence that shows that all gays are gay by choice alone." Why? Where have I said that in my argument? Have you actually read my posts? If not, read this again- "However, I have no doubt that homosexual feelings arise naturally in this world, whether from outside or biological influences. " And right away you are back to name-calling. Can you not fathom that people might disagree with you outside of bigotry? Sun, 12 Feb 2012 01:46:32 +0000 http://www.komonews.com/news/local/House-committee-advances-gay-marriage-bill-138790949.html#IDComment290118548 http://www.komonews.com/news/local/House-committee-advances-gay-marriage-bill-138790949.html#IDComment287729042 Noted scholars with the opposite view include Bruce Metzger, of whom Ehrman was a student and co-author, D.A. Carson, Daniel B. Wallace, and many others. Other scholars and theologians reject his methods and logic. In fact, show me a simple majority of scholars who agree whole-heartedly with Ehrman's view. You do realize that the sheer amount of scriptural documents requires that 1. There will undoubtedly be errors and 2. The amount of unerring scripture easily overcomes the errors, and also 3. Most of the errors do not even have to do with translation of doctrine. Thu, 9 Feb 2012 08:38:10 +0000 http://www.komonews.com/news/local/House-committee-advances-gay-marriage-bill-138790949.html#IDComment287729042 http://www.komonews.com/news/local/House-committee-advances-gay-marriage-bill-138790949.html#IDComment287672941 Funny how your own APA says, "There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation." However, I have no doubt that homosexual feelings arise naturally in this world, whether from outside or biological influences. Stop yelling "ignorance!" at your straw men. It is also incredibly misinformed to throw out all of the Bible over inconsequential errors in copying or conspiracy notions of political changes. Were all of Paul's books fabricated, or was he just suffering for an allegorical Jesus? Read my post above again. Whether traits come by biology or not, biology in itself passes no judgement on morality. Because someone is influenced by biological means does not make their actions moral, laudable, or even beneficial to society. Thu, 9 Feb 2012 06:42:46 +0000 http://www.komonews.com/news/local/House-committee-advances-gay-marriage-bill-138790949.html#IDComment287672941 http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Washington-state-lawmakers-pass-gay-marriage-bill-138972754.html#IDComment287620567 Do we need to circle around again? Love and commitment is not a singular basis for giving a union the new rights of marriage, although marriage requires both. See your comment above. My point was that 1. Homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals and 2. Giving homosexual couples the new rights of marriage cannot be based simply on love and commitment because that in itself is not a reason for elevating the status of a relationship. Therefore, the question comes down to whether there is a societal and moral benefit to elevating homosexual couples to the institution of marriage which until now has been served well by only including heterosexual couples. I do not believe that redefining marriage in this way would be beneficial. Again, this is not about making relationships equal. Thu, 9 Feb 2012 04:51:50 +0000 http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Washington-state-lawmakers-pass-gay-marriage-bill-138972754.html#IDComment287620567 http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Washington-state-lawmakers-pass-gay-marriage-bill-138972754.html#IDComment287583771 You don't understand. Perhaps you didn't reflect on what I actually wrote. I did not say "Homosexual couples," I said Homosexuals and Heterosexuals. The idea that couples of the same gender have the rights of marriage is a new idea, and one that cannot be based simply on "love" or "commitment." Thu, 9 Feb 2012 03:40:44 +0000 http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Washington-state-lawmakers-pass-gay-marriage-bill-138972754.html#IDComment287583771 http://www.komonews.com/news/local/House-committee-advances-gay-marriage-bill-138790949.html#IDComment287580293 And noted scholars whose works have stood the test of peer reviews and are recognized by scholars the world over can give perfectly rational arguments against him. Can you get through a paragraph without calling your opponent "ignorant" just because you read books written by someone with your view? The problem with considering yourself well educated is that you don't realize just how much you still don't know, and therefore you determine that everyone else is ignorant. Thu, 9 Feb 2012 03:34:46 +0000 http://www.komonews.com/news/local/House-committee-advances-gay-marriage-bill-138790949.html#IDComment287580293 http://www.komonews.com/news/local/House-committee-advances-gay-marriage-bill-138790949.html#IDComment287577771 And my point stays the same also. Whether traits come by biolog or not, biology in itself passes no judgement on morality. Are you a biologist yourself who has done extensive research and come to the only correct conclusion? To take a quote from an unbiased source. "No simple, single cause for sexual orientation has been conclusively demonstrated. Various studies point to different, even conflicting positions, such as a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences,[1] with biological factors involving a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment,[2] or no genetic influence." Wiki Biology has not been shown to be the sole factor, and good luck ever proving that it is. Thu, 9 Feb 2012 03:29:53 +0000 http://www.komonews.com/news/local/House-committee-advances-gay-marriage-bill-138790949.html#IDComment287577771 http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Washington-state-lawmakers-pass-gay-marriage-bill-138972754.html#IDComment287551491 If you are tired of the "same ol' crap," why do you still claim equality simply because people are in loving relationships? If you do not want silly answers, don't put forth silly ideas. Homosexuals had every right that heterosexuals had before this bill passed. Thu, 9 Feb 2012 02:42:00 +0000 http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Washington-state-lawmakers-pass-gay-marriage-bill-138972754.html#IDComment287551491 http://www.komonews.com/news/local/House-committee-advances-gay-marriage-bill-138790949.html#IDComment287548011 Rather interesting that scientists can find "gay genes" that predispose people towards homosexuality and also "god genes" that predispose people towards religion. So from your viewpoint, is religion even a choice? Obviously it is, since a person's genes hardly determine what kind of life they must live. Some scientists postulate that certain genes result in a propensity toward anger and violence, but does that mean those with these genes cannot live a non-violent life? Certainly not. Does it mean that they should live a violent life? Of course not. I have no problem with having my beliefs challenged. Mostly because there is more truth and fact in Christianity than any atheist is willing to admit. Furthermore, I was only making the point that a difference in beliefs does not require hate. I am definitely happy to see that you do not espouse hate against others of religious views, and likewise I do not hate any homosexual because of their homosexuality. I hope you are able to see that now. You say, "I don't hate you, I don't even know you," yet gay marriage supporters are quick to say that I hate them without ever having met them. Should they all seek therapy? Thu, 9 Feb 2012 02:35:34 +0000 http://www.komonews.com/news/local/House-committee-advances-gay-marriage-bill-138790949.html#IDComment287548011 http://www.komonews.com/news/local/House-committee-advances-gay-marriage-bill-138790949.html#IDComment287534534 Many changes and errors? More like differing versions that are still supported by the rest of the New Testament text. Most of that book does not even cover the quotes of Jesus (as the title would suggest), but instead examines differences in ancient wording and variances between the gospels. Since these differing versions are confirmed one way or another in the other books of the New Testament, how does a missing or faulty phrase somehow eliminate the validity of the entire Biblical message? Moreover, this book is written from a highly polarized and alarmist viewpoint, and is not an example of honest and unbiased textual criticism. While it may be entertaining fodder for opponents of organized religion, it is not at all a difinitive blow to Christianity; in many ways his arguments are not well thought out. Thu, 9 Feb 2012 02:14:16 +0000 http://www.komonews.com/news/local/House-committee-advances-gay-marriage-bill-138790949.html#IDComment287534534 http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Washington-state-lawmakers-pass-gay-marriage-bill-138972754.html#IDComment287515814 Of course this is not "Equality for all who wish to marry." This is a new "Right" for one group that finally got enough votes to pass a law saying that their unions could be called "Marriage." Can all other people in "loving relationships" get married if they so wish? No, because they do not have the required votes to invent a new "Right" for themselves. Thu, 9 Feb 2012 01:41:44 +0000 http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Washington-state-lawmakers-pass-gay-marriage-bill-138972754.html#IDComment287515814 http://www.komonews.com/news/local/House-committee-advances-gay-marriage-bill-138790949.html#IDComment286322556 You know as I do that the Bible was compiled over hundreds of years from various sources, both of the ancient and eye-witness variety. Do you find elements of the Bible which you deem to be grave errors? I am sure you do. If the New Testament Biblical narratives are simply allegory, why would men and women be willing to perish for this new fraud of a religion? If Christianity was meant as an allegory, who would write such a book to be taken as fact? Based on your words, it is clear that you have set out to find your own worldview within the text. You will find allegory in the most apparent literal parts of the Bible and condemn as foolishness the parts meant to be taken as allegory. What then was the message of Jesus according to you, since obviously his own words were not what he actually meant to say? And for Joseph... can you really not think of a reason Mary would call Joseph the father of Jesus, seeing as Joseph was married to her and was serving as Jesus' earthly father? Similarily, is it not customary for an adopted child to call someone, not his birth father, "father?" Tue, 7 Feb 2012 16:22:14 +0000 http://www.komonews.com/news/local/House-committee-advances-gay-marriage-bill-138790949.html#IDComment286322556 http://www.komonews.com/news/local/House-committee-advances-gay-marriage-bill-138790949.html#IDComment286307943 Yes, it is often easier to resort to the therapy of name calling when you cannot fathom another's point. Ease does not make the act, or yourself, right. So you believe that someone cannot disagree with a lifestyle without also hating, condemning, and looking down on those who engage in that lifestyle? Therefore, if you disagree with my "moronic" Christian lifestyle, which you certainly would not prescribe for society, you must hate and look down on me? Well, maybe that, at least, is true for yourself. However, it needn't be that way. Why do you stick to the idea that Christians must be hateful, simply because they disagree? Where is your basis in reality? Tue, 7 Feb 2012 15:59:50 +0000 http://www.komonews.com/news/local/House-committee-advances-gay-marriage-bill-138790949.html#IDComment286307943 http://www.komonews.com/news/local/House-committee-advances-gay-marriage-bill-138790949.html#IDComment286009697 Where did Jesus condone gay marriage? When did Jesus support homosexuality? Jesus said to love others, including brothers, neighbors, and enemies. He said to repent of one's sins. He also supported the law. I do not believe in re-defining marriage because I do not believe it will be beneficial to society. I do not hate, condemn, or look down on homosexuals; Jesus forbade this. However, that in no way means I cannot point to something as being morally wrong. Jesus did that all the time. I can tell you love name calling from all the "morons" and "idiots" I find in your posts; if you are so incosiderate and disrespectful toward the views of others, why do you bother to speak out in public forums? Tue, 7 Feb 2012 07:34:20 +0000 http://www.komonews.com/news/local/House-committee-advances-gay-marriage-bill-138790949.html#IDComment286009697 http://www.komonews.com/news/local/House-committee-advances-gay-marriage-bill-138790949.html#IDComment286009524 What teaching of Jesus am I in conflict with? I take his words from the source, the Bible. Jesus was human? Yes, in fact he was. God is a metaphor? No where in the Bible does it say that. Jesus never said anything remotely in that direction. "I and the Father are one." Jesus was claiming that he also was a "metaphor?" When Jesus said he was "sent" by the Father, he was claiming to be sent by a metaphor? When Jesus said that "man does not live on bread alone but on the word of God," he was talking about words written by...who? When Jesus said David's writings were inspired by the Holy Spirit, he was saying that David was inspired by... what? A "metaphor" as you put it, or "My Father," as Jesus would put it? I put the challenge back on you. Support your own claim. Tue, 7 Feb 2012 07:34:02 +0000 http://www.komonews.com/news/local/House-committee-advances-gay-marriage-bill-138790949.html#IDComment286009524 http://www.komonews.com/news/local/House-committee-advances-gay-marriage-bill-138790949.html#IDComment285819132 I am a Christian. I do not think that marriage should be re-defined to mean something that it is not. I do not hate homosexuals. I make a point to not hate anyone. I do not fear homosexuality any more than I fear any other thing I believe is morally wrong. I do not fear adultery or other sexual issues that are immoral. I do not fear lies, pride, or hatred, yet I know these things to also be wrong. I certainly do not resort to calling people "stupid" when they disagree with me morally. I simply do not believe that the state should make up a new "right" which I believe will not serve society well. Why hate me for that? This is not a question of love, for obviously not all loving relationships qualify as marriage, and I doubt anyone thinks such. This is not a question of equality, for not all relationships are the same, and cannot be treated the same. This is about validating your position. I disagree with that, but I certainly do not hate you for it. Please show the same respect for my view as I do for yours. Tue, 7 Feb 2012 02:20:08 +0000 http://www.komonews.com/news/local/House-committee-advances-gay-marriage-bill-138790949.html#IDComment285819132 http://www.komonews.com/news/boeing/124615419.html#IDComment167319106 Oh, why can't the US government show the same favoritism towards Boeing that the Europeans show to Airbus? Mon, 27 Jun 2011 21:54:11 +0000 http://www.komonews.com/news/boeing/124615419.html#IDComment167319106