Obviously your criteria for actual *harm* is different than mine. Hurting someone's feelings and not liking them is part of what most people consider ... freedom.
The Intolerance of 'Tolerance', the Inequality of 'Equality' and Left Wing Hypocrisy
- Thread starter lovemeorhateme
- Start date
Obviously your criteria for actual *harm* is different than mine. Hurting someone's feelings and not liking them is part of what most people consider ... freedom.
Then you agree that believers should fight the intolerance of the gay community - thanks.
:thumb:
What intolerance? Homosexuals simply want inclusion into the institution of marriage while attempts to exclude them are put forth by christian bigots.
And they want christian business to agree with them and sell off their own beliefs or close shop.
Thats the epitome of intolerance.
What part of 'christians do not claim to be tolerant' do you keep missing?
That's one idea. It isn't true in our compact, but it's an idea.
Same answer. In our compact you have the right to do any number of things. You can write, by way of, what you will (with certain restrictions relating to a legitimate state interest in the safety of others and itself). And you can exercise that right to elevate and ennoble or lower the aspiration and moral compass of the public square. Sin or virtue is found in the exercise of a right.
You're confusing ability with right. You have the right to speak your mind, whether you do or not, whether you can (for any number of reasons) or not. You don't have a right to be eloquent though, by way of, only the relatively unfettered opportunity to be or not to be
eek. Right's aren't about your particular limitation or ability, only about what is permissible or deniable within the compact.Rather, you don't have the right, though you may have the ability. You have the right to property and to defend it against a wrongful taking, which is another animal all together.
Rather, people have a right to contract and any abrogation of that right, especially as it regards an inequity in exercise, must be justified by a particular standard, depending on the subject.
If you object to the exercise of right that manages it you will find few if any rights left at the end of your efforts.
Sorry, but that's just not our call. We don't get to tell people they can't have alcohol because we know a very great many will use it in a sinful way, that alcohol itself is an invitation to sin, which it mostly is as advertised and used (disclaimers notwithstanding). Rather, we can exercise our actual rights and conscience by witness and an attempt to compel people to exercise their own rights morally.
That's our obligation.
We all come to God burdened by sin of one sort or another (many, to the point). That your hypothetical person has a legal contract that is not a covenant between them and God may make their lives more complicated, but the primal issue and answer to it remains for them as it does for any. I'll grant it's a different and troublesome consequence to sort through, but that's the nature of life.
You might abuse the temple with tobacco for years then come to God and find yourself dealing with the effects of that abuse even so. The testimony/witness on the point is how you go about doing that. As you know, freedom from the wages of sin isn't always a freedom from the temporal consequence of it for anyone.
Always makes me smile. The things we will learn in the fullness of existence. I omit but enjoyed your notes that followed on it.
To me that speaks to something fundamentally altered.
I suspect that's it.
:cheers:
What part of "moral intolerance" do you keep missing?
No one is segregating christians (other than christians themself)...the opposite cannot be said of christians regarding homosexuality. You simply cannot express bigotry based upon religious ignorance.
Morals come from God.
This thread is about the ones who claim to be oh so tolerant and their hypocrisy.
Did you forget where you were again?
Then remove bigotry from your life by removing petty gods from your life.
What better way to express tolerance than to oppose expressed intolerance!
There is only One God. Are you calling Him petty?
So you believe being tolerant means to fight everything you are personally intolerant of. :rotfl:
Thank you for demonstrating exactly what this thread is about, people like you.
See, i wont force someone to do business with me, if they dont want to serve me because i am christian, more power to them.
You will though, crybaby hypocrite.
Yes. He propogates petty ignorance so...YES!
Yes, its called justice, equality, compassion. Are those funny to you?
...but you have no problem PROUDLY condemning and oppressing homosexuals.....how christian of you! :chuckle:
And my thanks to you for boastfully raising this thread's level of ignorance.
how much i care what you think about me or what i think = 0
I cannot be bullied by crys of intolerance, bigotry or anything else, because you do not supply my well being
:up:
PureX
Well-known member
And yet historically, organized Christianity has used whatever power it managed to gain to enforce it's own morality, regardless of the desires of anyone under it's rule that disagreed with their mandates. In fact, if organized Christianity is "notorious" for anything, it's the abuse of power in the service of social and religious oppression. And certainly not for it's respect of the rights of others!
Nor are you willing to allow anyone else call a union between two men a marriage.
While you would happily accede to the government discriminating against people of other religious or secular "creeds", and would even encourage it in most instances. Like the secular creed of equal freedom, justice, and mutual tolerance of all.
And you imagine this to be occurring even when it's not, because you think that you should not have to be equal under the law. You think the laws should reflect your moral superiority over everyone else.
Even though you vote and fight consistantly, by any means legal and illegal, fair or unfair, honest or dishonest, to disallow them that right? Like the right to have an abortion. And the right to marry whom one chooses.
Talk about hypocrisy!
Jedidiah
New member
Town,
I am trying to express my feelings about this topic in cogent language. If it cannot be done, then my feelings -- which are now amorphous, not being expressed in cogent language yet -- are off, and I need to know that, so I appreciate your taking the time poking holes in what I'm offering.
Because you affirm the sinfulness of the behavior in question, it lends credence to what you're saying. So, since we're agreed on that point, I feel like we must be able to at least see what the other is saying, and even come to agreement at some point as well.
OK, so ability is a better word. I'm going to go with power, though, and rewrite my introduction to that last post:
An interesting thought. If I have the power to steal from people, and they don't have the power to stop me...then that's why we have police.
Here is where there is a divergence from what I'm talking about. I'm more familiar with negative rights than positive ones. In the above example we discussed stealing. We have a right to not be victims of stealing, and in order to secure that right, we establish government (with laws and police and military). Having a right to contract isn't the same as having the power to contract, because to be able to contract at all requires a government to recognize, protect and enforce contracts, otherwise it's just a gentleman's agreement.
I have the power to walk and chew gum, it doesn't depend upon there being a government involved.
It is our call. We don't encourage stealing because we have laws against it, and police and military to enforce those laws if broken. We don't want people stealing. Wrt this issue, in order for it to be a better analogy, we'd be talking not about whether to allow alcohol sales, but about whether to issue lifetime permits for drunk and disorderly conduct and drunk driving get-out-of-jail-free cards.
OK. I suppose my real concern there was that we the Church haven't sorted out how to preach to LGBTQ people who are married and then come to the Cross, wrt their legal marriage contract; what to do about it.
I agree, and this also goes to my thoughts about how the Church should specifically handle the issue, since it's a very new one for us.
Me too, though throughout this interaction I've come to wonder at a single thing: that Our Lord chose to exclude more details about what our incorruptible bodies will be like. From my view, I'd think that'd be a great selling point for people to believe, but obviously I am wrong in that estimation, and I'm just curious as to why. It fascinates me that such descriptions wouldn't further the Kingdom of God. And I would think that if we did know, in more details, in these mortal bodies, about what our new bodies will be like, we would actually be less likely to believe the Gospel; this is the only possible option, since if it would help us to believe, then Our Lord would have wanted such details included in the canon, and He did not.
It reminds me of Paul's mysterious passage, talking about the third heaven.
I am trying to express my feelings about this topic in cogent language. If it cannot be done, then my feelings -- which are now amorphous, not being expressed in cogent language yet -- are off, and I need to know that, so I appreciate your taking the time poking holes in what I'm offering.
Because you affirm the sinfulness of the behavior in question, it lends credence to what you're saying. So, since we're agreed on that point, I feel like we must be able to at least see what the other is saying, and even come to agreement at some point as well.
That's one idea. It isn't true in our compact, but it's an idea.
Same answer. In our compact you have the right to do any number of things. You can write, by way of, what you will (with certain restrictions relating to a legitimate state interest in the safety of others and itself). And you can exercise that right to elevate and ennoble or lower the aspiration and moral compass of the public square. Sin or virtue is found in the exercise of a right.
You're confusing ability with right. You have the right to speak your mind, whether you do or not, whether you can (for any number of reasons) or not. You don't have a right to be eloquent though, by way of, only the relatively unfettered opportunity to be or not to be
I have the power to do whatever I can do at all. I have the power to sin, and the power to avoid sin.* What I cannot do, I cannot be said to have the power to do that thing. I can't jump over a tall building in a single bound, so I don't have the power to do that.
* - This probably requires some elaboration.
Meanwhile, even though I have the power to steal from people, we collectively have the power to protect ourselves collectively from people who choose to exercise their power to steal from people. It seems most likely to effect our Safety and Happiness if we prosecute those who exercise their power to steal from people. We have that collective power, to do that. We have frequently throughout history exercised that power, in regard to stealing.
Also, we people have the collective power to recognize marriage contracts between two people of the same sex.
I had to drop a number of sentences from it that no longer made sense. How's it sound ?* - This probably requires some elaboration.
Meanwhile, even though I have the power to steal from people, we collectively have the power to protect ourselves collectively from people who choose to exercise their power to steal from people. It seems most likely to effect our Safety and Happiness if we prosecute those who exercise their power to steal from people. We have that collective power, to do that. We have frequently throughout history exercised that power, in regard to stealing.
Also, we people have the collective power to recognize marriage contracts between two people of the same sex.
An interesting thought. If I have the power to steal from people, and they don't have the power to stop me...then that's why we have police.
Here is where there is a divergence from what I'm talking about. I'm more familiar with negative rights than positive ones. In the above example we discussed stealing. We have a right to not be victims of stealing, and in order to secure that right, we establish government (with laws and police and military). Having a right to contract isn't the same as having the power to contract, because to be able to contract at all requires a government to recognize, protect and enforce contracts, otherwise it's just a gentleman's agreement.
I have the power to walk and chew gum, it doesn't depend upon there being a government involved.
It is our call. We don't encourage stealing because we have laws against it, and police and military to enforce those laws if broken. We don't want people stealing. Wrt this issue, in order for it to be a better analogy, we'd be talking not about whether to allow alcohol sales, but about whether to issue lifetime permits for drunk and disorderly conduct and drunk driving get-out-of-jail-free cards.
OK. I suppose my real concern there was that we the Church haven't sorted out how to preach to LGBTQ people who are married and then come to the Cross, wrt their legal marriage contract; what to do about it.
I agree, and this also goes to my thoughts about how the Church should specifically handle the issue, since it's a very new one for us.
Me too, though throughout this interaction I've come to wonder at a single thing: that Our Lord chose to exclude more details about what our incorruptible bodies will be like. From my view, I'd think that'd be a great selling point for people to believe, but obviously I am wrong in that estimation, and I'm just curious as to why. It fascinates me that such descriptions wouldn't further the Kingdom of God. And I would think that if we did know, in more details, in these mortal bodies, about what our new bodies will be like, we would actually be less likely to believe the Gospel; this is the only possible option, since if it would help us to believe, then Our Lord would have wanted such details included in the canon, and He did not.
It reminds me of Paul's mysterious passage, talking about the third heaven.
I don't think we disagree at all on the nature of the thing. To answer a few points.
Conversely, we may not arbitrarily discriminate against any individual or group of individuals, may not impede their right absent meeting a very high bar for the state to do so. Some people see the legalization of gay marriage as a creation, but to those parties whose right to that particular contract has been denied it is, instead, the undoing of a law that failed to justify its existence and to meet the standard by which such an abrogation is permissible.
Re: the standard for justifying the abrogation of right.
Re: on the nature of law.
:e4e:
I think it literally describes what you're talking about and that word is a bit different from the right to do a thing, which is the point of the topic when we come to law.
Sound enough, though the power to do a thing then must have an expression and the expression a basis. In our compact the expression is the law and the basis is what we call right.
We do through the law as an extension of the right of two consenting parties to contract to anything which meets the elements thereof and is not in the furtherance of a criminal activity.
Conversely, we may not arbitrarily discriminate against any individual or group of individuals, may not impede their right absent meeting a very high bar for the state to do so. Some people see the legalization of gay marriage as a creation, but to those parties whose right to that particular contract has been denied it is, instead, the undoing of a law that failed to justify its existence and to meet the standard by which such an abrogation is permissible.
Yes. We can guarantee, collectively, what we might not be capable of individually and empower those to enforce the right as between parties, be it on the street or in the courtroom.
Re: the standard for justifying the abrogation of right.
I've never liked that philosophical distinction, since a negative is really only the means to protect the positive or inherent right of the individual or state/collective.
Where I'd say you have a right to property and a right to the quiet enjoyment of it and the unlawful interference with that right must be equitably addressed by the state. And where the state itself abrogates right, justified by standard. No "negative right" exists except as a condition relating to the actual and affirmative right.
And so the law and the mechanism by which we enforce it.
It does if I have a pistol and say you cannot.
Re: on the nature of law.
Not exactly, in a republic. Now you can abolish the republic and make of the new thing something dependent on your singular or the majority's collective moral compass and abolish the law and refashion it as a weather vane for the prevailing moral consideration, but I'd caution against it. There isn't a single Western example of that ending well, that didn't invite a tyranny of the majority, which itself changed from time to time, leaving the tyrants of one day under the thumb of another.
We believe you have a fundamental right to property, the interference with which should have consequence as an offense against that right and an injury to equity.
No, we're talking about the right to contract with the state in marriage and what constitutes a justification for abrogating that right, for holding the majority possesses it and the minority does not.
A serious but separate issue from the legal argument though. What to do seems clear enough. One cannot be married within the context of a Christian home and of the same sex. So the couple must divorce, there being irreconcilable differences arising which cannot be resolved, to use an actual term of art in the procurement of divorce where adultery, fraud or some other violation hasn't occurred.
Maybe its in the focus of Christ, who seemed more set on how we live here than how we will live else, that being secured by the cross.
:e4e:
Dialogos
Well-known member
Granted, there have been people and countries that have done some pretty terrible things in the name of Christ. More than a few debates have been inspired by the question of the authenticity of their faith.
But if we want to go digging up dirt, I am sure there is enough to go around.
All world religions, as well as atheist movements have their historical moments to be blush over.
The Atheists have Pol Pot, Mao Tse-Tung, Stalin and Lenin.
The Buddhists have long histories of violence in South Asian including conflicts that extend into the present age in Myanmar, Sri-Lanka.
Hindus have the caste system.
Etc…
PureX said:
Right ‘cause that is what Christianity is “notorious” for. Never mind the fact that most of the western world’s (and many of the eastern world’s) hospital systems were started by Christian denominations. Never mind the fact that slavery was abolished because of Christians. Never mind the fact that the civil rights movement was largely a movement that grew out of Christian churches. Never mind the fact that, even today, the citizens of more conservative religious states are the most generous per capita and the least religious states have, statistically, the least generous citizens per capita.
Never mind the fact that the third largest disaster relief organization in the world is organized and funded by…..
(drumroll please…..)
:drum:
The Southern Baptist Convention.
:shocked:
That’s right!
:BRAVO:
Those backward hick, gay marriage hatin’, fundies have the third largest all volunteer disaster relief organization in the world!
The Disaster Relief arm of the SBC has a seat at the FEMA table because when natural disasters hit U.S. cities and towns DR is among the first with boots on the ground, cutting up fallen trees, mucking out basements, distributing hot food from food carts, handing out potable water, giving out clean cloths and establishing triage mental health services through chaplaincy service. And they do it all with volunteers. All the funding for this nifty little program comes from folks sitting in pews on Sunday morning without a shiny red penny coming from government coffers.
So, PureX, how do you like those backwoods, Jesus freak, loud preachin’, conservative votin’, okra lovin’ Kentucky fried bible beatin’ Baptists now?
BTW, do you know what most liberals, secularists and atheists characteristically do when disasters strike neighboring cities?
Yea, they watch evangelical Christians serving their fellow man on the nightly news.
:down:
But I guess that there is some consolation in being able to blame so called Christians hundreds of years ago for the crusades, right?
Uh, ‘cause it isn’t.PureX said:
I’m not going just shrug my shoulders while the government that I support with tax dollars lies to two men calling them “married” on a form that we all pay for. They aren't married, and won’t ever be married, and I don’t feel like coughing up tax dollars to fund the lie.
PureX said:
You are quite good at sloganeering, PureX.
Not so good at getting specific though.
My question to you was...
No answers from you, just slogans.me said:
We neither preach nor demand intolerance.
We preach what God’s Word says and only demand that we remain free to do so.
We demand the rights afforded us by the Bill of Rights: the right to abstain from religious ceremonies we find objectionable, the right to publish books without being punished for what’s in them and the right to have our civic voices heard in the halls of government. But no one is forced to listen to what we preach.
When was the last time an armed man showed up at your house telling you that you had to go to church?
:idunno:
I think we have been through this enough times that you don’t get a pass anymore. You are intentionally making straw-man arguments.PureX said:
:sozo: Christians do not claim to have moral superiority over everyone else. In fact, as I have said to you many times, a central tenant of evangelical Christianity is that all have sinned and fallen short of God’s glory.
Furthermore, Christians, by and large, don’t want to deny two men who want to play married the right to purchase a cake made for their pretend marriage. We just want the right not to have to be the one baking it.
You mean the right to force others to violate their own consciences?PureX said:
YOU BET I’LL FIGHT THAT!
:angrymob:
I’ll fight an unjust government that demands that bakeries bake cakes for so called same sex weddings, I’ll fight despotic so called human rights commissions that punish photographers who abstain from religious ceremonies that violate their consciences, I’ll fight self contradictory laws that discriminate against those of religious creed in order to bestow special status on the basis of sexual orientation and I’ll fight any government that wants to penalize clergy for refusing to perform a marriage ceremony that violates their faith (and we all know that this is coming next).
You mean the right to kill a human baby that two parents were responsible for creating?PureX said:
Let’s just call it what it really is.
PureX said:
Let’s see if you support that right indiscriminately, PureX.
Do you support the right of a man in Utah to marry more than one woman?
Do you support the right of three men to marry one another?
Do you support the right of a human to marry a dog?
Do you support the right of an adult man to marry his adult sister?
Do you support the right of a mother to marry her adult son?
Or are you only talking about gay marriage?
PureX
Well-known member
"Well, THEY did it too!" Is this really your response? You really don't see how lame that is?
You could have made a good point, here. But instead, you just had to be rude, and snotty, and arrogant, and condescending, because that's how Christianity has effected you. And so as a result, you undercut your own point, and you exemplified why Christianity is 'notorious' for everything evil that has been done in it's name, by it's followers, instead of for the good things it has done.Right ‘cause that is what Christianity is “notorious” for. Never mind the fact that most of the western world’s (and many of the eastern world’s) hospital systems were started by Christian denominations. Never mind the fact that slavery was abolished because of Christians. Never mind the fact that the civil rights movement was largely a movement that grew out of Christian churches. Never mind the fact that, even today, the citizens of more conservative religious states are the most generous per capita and the least religious states have, statistically, the least generous citizens per capita.
Never mind the fact that the third largest disaster relief organization in the world is organized and funded by…..
(drumroll please…..)
:drum:
The Southern Baptist Convention.
:shocked:
That’s right!
:BRAVO:
Those backward hick, gay marriage hatin’, fundies have the third largest all volunteer disaster relief organization in the world!
The Disaster Relief arm of the SBC has a seat at the FEMA table because when natural disasters hit U.S. cities and towns DR is among the first with boots on the ground, cutting up fallen trees, mucking out basements, distributing hot food from food carts, handing out potable water, giving out clean cloths and establishing triage mental health services through chaplaincy service. And they do it all with volunteers. All the funding for this nifty little program comes from folks sitting in pews on Sunday morning without a shiny red penny coming from government coffers.
So, PureX, how do you like those backwoods, Jesus freak, loud preachin’, conservative votin’, okra lovin’ Kentucky fried bible beatin’ Baptists now?
BTW, do you know what most liberals, secularists and atheists characteristically do when disasters strike neighboring cities?
Yea, they watch evangelical Christians serving their fellow man on the nightly news.
:down:
But I guess that there is some consolation in being able to blame so called Christians hundreds of years ago for the crusades, right?
Thus proving my point that Christianity will use any power it has to deny the rights and freedoms of others and to force them into subjugation. You lay claim to extraordinary Christians like Martin Luther King, but in fact most Christians despised him at the time, and most of the men who beat the marchers were Christians. They were just like many your right wing extremist Christians, today: rude, arrogant, mean-spirited, privileged, and willing to do whatever it took to defend their "way of life".
And yet every response you give is dripping with it. You couldn't even respond to my post without displaying your disgust.
If only that were true.
If Christians are no better than anyone else, morally, then why do they always presume you have the right to control everyone else's decisions?
See, you couldn't even write that without loading it up with condescending, insulting, judgmental phrases. You WANT to hurt those people. That's why you can't write about them without the insults. It's why you can't serve them in a commercial setting as you would anyone else. You show your intolerance and mean-spiritedness even while you're trying to deny it.
That's absurd.
Last edited: