| 
Yeah, thanks for re-posting what you said. I read it the first time, and you wasted my time the second time. You don't seem to understand my post, so I won't bother trying to hard. Let me simplify:
Preacher A was raped as a child, and therefore thinks sex is bad.
Preacher B was raped as a child, but received therapy and sees that good sex is good, and bad sex is bad.
Their opinions differ because they come from different places, but Preacher B can help Preacher A by providing him or her with relevent information.
In the end, it is hoped that both preacher A and B will understand that sex is good when it is good, and bad when it is bad.
If they fail to do so, it is because Preacher A is closed minded, or B is not good at communicating.
In either case, it is the weakness of the human that resulted in two alternate opinions, not the "subjectivity" of truth, whatever that is.
Anyways, it is apparent you have no idea what you're talking about which is why your second response was assanine compared to your first. Musta planned that first one for a while, eh? Worded it carefully?
Tool, this isn't a popularity contest. Go home.
"Hating everyone protects me from elitism."
|
your funny. This is not a sarcasm contest however. Your whole last post, although is assumed true, you have digressed. You have provided new material into the discussion. Why? because you misinterpreted the situation at hand. All I was saying was that opinions do differ between all (and including preachers a-z) because they come from different contexts. Which indeed you now admit you agree on. Simple as that.
