True. I fecking despise harp music anyway.

They aren't much cop with lager either

I understand the point, but in my case, one of that poster's stated "very personal beliefs" is that I am Satan. Another is that Jesus shared a garden with his brother's rabbit. The statements don't need ridiculing nor could anyone add to their inherent degree of self-evident ridiculousness. It would be a genuine service to the poster if he could be made to realise how ridiculous these sort of beliefs are. (Though in this case, the words 'duck', 'back' and 'water' for some reason spring to mind).

Well thats it for me then. As long as your beliefs don't stop you from treating anybody any differently then its completely fair enough in my book.

I don't agree with your beliefs at all, but live and let live I say.

They are friends, until the heathens die and burn in a fiery hell that is.

cynic

Friends are people you respect. I wouldn't find it particularly respectful if my 'friends' believed I had been 'deceived by Satan', that I would be going to hell for eternity, and if my 'friends' loved the being that would be sending me there.

Drivel.

If you'd announced your presence on this particular forum by starting a thread on, say, whether tea was better than coffee, the issue of your religious beliefs would hardly have arisen.

You didn't. You announced your presence on the Sin Bin by starting a thread against equal marriage: not about whether it was good, bad or indifferent, but against. When questioned as to why you opposed it, you took the first opportunity to proclaim your particular beliefs.

Ah, but we've done this one before.

Kirkstaller believes (or claims to believe) that "by grace are ye saved through faith".

In other words, deeds make no difference. So as an example, if Hitler had accepted Christ as his personal saviour right at the end, he'd be in heaven right now. I put exactly that illustration to Kirkstaller some time ago and he agreed with it.

My personal problem with Kirkstaller, as he chooses to represent himself here, is that he is a fundamentalist; an extremist. For want of a better way of putting it, and using religious terminology, his religiosity does not see him present a state of grace to the world, but his own belief that he is superior to most of the rest of the world because he has the 'correct' beliefs.

Indeed, his assertions earlier in this thread that god chooses who gets to have faith – in other words, god [i[]chooses[/i] who is going to go to heaven – illustrates perfectly the showing-off aspect of his testimony. Since the choice is up to his god, why would he bother evangelising? He cannot, by his own logic, make any difference. But he continues nonetheless, passing judgement on the majority of the rest of humanity and condemning them. And he believes (as respresented here) that this special chosen quality he has allows him to decide on other people's lives for them.

I really do not care what people choose to believe. It's none of my business – until they attempt to inflict those beliefs on others, either directly through evangelising or indirectly, by influencing political decisions that impact on others (abortion, equal marriage etc), and most particularly when their only arguments in such circumstances are of the circular variety that we've seen many times now from Kirkstaller.

I've started worshipping the rabbit. I reckon Jesus was talking to him, not kirkstaller.