Is that good or bad?
The Intolerance of 'Tolerance', the Inequality of 'Equality' and Left Wing Hypocrisy
- Thread starter lovemeorhateme
- Start date
Is that good or bad?
PureX
Well-known member
I am always amazed by how self-evident the prejudicial biases is the 'true believer' are. Having adopted the habit of blindly accepting the prejudices of a few three thousand year old Jewish scribes as the absolute truth of God and humanity, that bias then becomes a self-evident reality for them. And I am sure they must be sincerely mystified by our inability to recognize and accept blindly what is so 'obvious' to them.
And yet, of course, we don't. And we can't.
PureX
Well-known member
One would think. But sadly, the "Christianity" that some have chosen demands that they DO NOT respect the right of others to choose otherwise. So how can the rest of us tolerate a religion that preaches and demands intolerance? And that will relentlessly attack anyone who refuses to bow to it's demands? So, intolerance forces an intolerant response, and then accuses the respondents of hypocrisy. This is modern conservative Christianity at work on the social level. And I find it repulsive. As do most people.
Jedidiah
New member
Town,
I have an inherent right to do whatever I can do at all. I have a right to sin, and a right to avoid sin. What I cannot do, I cannot be said to have a right to do that thing. I can't jump over a tall building in a single bound, so I don't have a right to do that. If I start to preach that I do have that right, and I make it incumbent upon my neighbors to provide me with this right, then I'm exploiting temporal power.
Meanwhile, even though I have a right to steal from people, we collectively have the right to protect ourselves collectively from people who choose to exercise their right to steal from people. That's what the Declaration of Independence says, "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." It seems most likely to effect our Safety and Happiness if we prosecute those who exercise their right to steal from people. We have that collective right, to do that. We have frequently throughout history exercised that right, in regard to stealing.
Also, we people have a collective right to recognize marriage contracts between two people of the same sex. I think it is a sin for us to do so, but not perhaps for the reason you may suspect. It is the sin of scandal, of putting before our LGBTQ brothers and sisters a stumbling block. Because we Christians especially know that LGBTQ behavior is sinful, it is putting a stumbling stone before them to recognize their marriages, because it lends validity to an inherently invalid thing; we as Christians know this, we know that SSM is not so much wrong, as it is invalid. To make it valid in our laws does not make it valid in any other sense. A promiscuous married LGBTQ person is not committing adultery since that sin requires a valid marriage in the first place. They would be promiscuous fornicatorsKJV, but not adulterers.
So, if an LGBTQ person gets married, and then comes to Our Lord, they will be burdened with the legal fact that they are married, and they will troubled because we people have collectively chosen to recognize SSM as valid marriage, and the Gospel implies certain things about marriage (it's explicit too of course), and one of those things is that marriage is for life, so the new LGBTQ believer will be burdened unnecessarily with this legal status, and will have to undo it if they are so led, thus divorcing, which is something that is typically seen as imperfect among believers.
I don't know, maybe it's not as scandalous as I thought. Maybe upon receiving the Holy Spirit, they will see the inherent invalidity of their marriage, and will handle divorce just as if it's dissolving any other contract, and not a marriage. Maybe it won't be confusing or burdensome for them at all, and I'm concerned about something that's not going to happen. :idunno:
I always am fascinated by the differences between the synoptic Gospels and John's Gospel. He isn't mysterious about it either, he reveals to us that, "...there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written," and that his own selection process was guided by, "...that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name."
John chose to include certain facts in his account that were missing from the other three, and as you know one of them was some interactions between Our Lord and the Apostle Thomas.
I like how John sets up this part of the story, with Thomas's bold and dramatic declaration that, "Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe," ultimately followed by his conclusion, "My Lord and my God." I think John's inclusion of this account does further his explicit goal in writing his Gospel.
It is, although I can't tell if He appeared different to an unbiased observer, or if only to those who knew Him before His crucifixion. John himself knew that it was Him only upon witnessing a very characteristic miracle of the great catch of 153 fish, others only after He had left their presence, and others when He addressed them personally. Luke reports that only upon Him blessing and breaking bread that, "...their eyes were opened, and they knew him."
It's a very curious thing, and some of us wonder why there isn't more detail about Our Lord's (and our future) incorruptible resurrected body, but I personally have to conclude that such detail would not further the glorious Gospel of Our Lord, so therefore it is less important to know than the manifold facts that were preserved for history.
That makes sense to me. If we do look different to others who know us in this body, then it makes sense that something -- such as distinctive scarring -- might be retained in our whole, incorruptible new bodies. I doubt that we would have the capacity for vanity in seeing such distinctions among us as ugly or unattractive, especially since Our Lord Himself retains the evidence of His Passover sacrifice for our sins.
I have an inherent right to do whatever I can do at all. I have a right to sin, and a right to avoid sin. What I cannot do, I cannot be said to have a right to do that thing. I can't jump over a tall building in a single bound, so I don't have a right to do that. If I start to preach that I do have that right, and I make it incumbent upon my neighbors to provide me with this right, then I'm exploiting temporal power.
Meanwhile, even though I have a right to steal from people, we collectively have the right to protect ourselves collectively from people who choose to exercise their right to steal from people. That's what the Declaration of Independence says, "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." It seems most likely to effect our Safety and Happiness if we prosecute those who exercise their right to steal from people. We have that collective right, to do that. We have frequently throughout history exercised that right, in regard to stealing.
Also, we people have a collective right to recognize marriage contracts between two people of the same sex. I think it is a sin for us to do so, but not perhaps for the reason you may suspect. It is the sin of scandal, of putting before our LGBTQ brothers and sisters a stumbling block. Because we Christians especially know that LGBTQ behavior is sinful, it is putting a stumbling stone before them to recognize their marriages, because it lends validity to an inherently invalid thing; we as Christians know this, we know that SSM is not so much wrong, as it is invalid. To make it valid in our laws does not make it valid in any other sense. A promiscuous married LGBTQ person is not committing adultery since that sin requires a valid marriage in the first place. They would be promiscuous fornicatorsKJV, but not adulterers.
So, if an LGBTQ person gets married, and then comes to Our Lord, they will be burdened with the legal fact that they are married, and they will troubled because we people have collectively chosen to recognize SSM as valid marriage, and the Gospel implies certain things about marriage (it's explicit too of course), and one of those things is that marriage is for life, so the new LGBTQ believer will be burdened unnecessarily with this legal status, and will have to undo it if they are so led, thus divorcing, which is something that is typically seen as imperfect among believers.
I don't know, maybe it's not as scandalous as I thought. Maybe upon receiving the Holy Spirit, they will see the inherent invalidity of their marriage, and will handle divorce just as if it's dissolving any other contract, and not a marriage. Maybe it won't be confusing or burdensome for them at all, and I'm concerned about something that's not going to happen. :idunno:
I always am fascinated by the differences between the synoptic Gospels and John's Gospel. He isn't mysterious about it either, he reveals to us that, "...there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written," and that his own selection process was guided by, "...that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name."
John chose to include certain facts in his account that were missing from the other three, and as you know one of them was some interactions between Our Lord and the Apostle Thomas.
I like how John sets up this part of the story, with Thomas's bold and dramatic declaration that, "Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe," ultimately followed by his conclusion, "My Lord and my God." I think John's inclusion of this account does further his explicit goal in writing his Gospel.
It is, although I can't tell if He appeared different to an unbiased observer, or if only to those who knew Him before His crucifixion. John himself knew that it was Him only upon witnessing a very characteristic miracle of the great catch of 153 fish, others only after He had left their presence, and others when He addressed them personally. Luke reports that only upon Him blessing and breaking bread that, "...their eyes were opened, and they knew him."
It's a very curious thing, and some of us wonder why there isn't more detail about Our Lord's (and our future) incorruptible resurrected body, but I personally have to conclude that such detail would not further the glorious Gospel of Our Lord, so therefore it is less important to know than the manifold facts that were preserved for history.
...I think a new body would only bear the imprint of the inhabitant, given our atoms will be God knows where.
If the intolerance equals hypocrisy, it's bad.
Dialogos
Well-known member
I don't think so.
Christianity is notoriously reputed for being among the world religions that respect the rights of mankind to make choices, even sinful choices.
We aren't willing to call a union between two men a marriage because it isn't.
We aren't willing to silently accede to the government discriminating against us on the basis of religious creed in the name of tolerance.
And we aren't willing to be strong-armed into participating and celebrating those things that violate our faith informed consciences.
But we realize that people have the right to make choices even if they are bad choices.
Like what specifically? What do you think evangelical Christians in America demand? And what relentless attacks are you referring to, specifically?PureX said:
And yet in this argument if one preaches overall tolerance and equality they should tolerate both.
As a Christian we should live by Romans 12:9, regardless what others think we should do.
So, you consider yourself a hypocrite if you're intolerant of child pornography? I didn't think so.
Likewise, the liberal doesn't consider him/herself hypocritical for being intolerant of intolerance writ large.
Doesn't look like you know what hypocrisy means. It doesnt mean intolerant.
read; understand context before opening mouth.
I have, and what you said to Rusha, makes no sense to the context of the thread.
Unless of course you can tell us how and when she uses pornography, then at the same time denies it to others.
Considering it actually HURTS children, no, I would not be a hypocrite.
There is nothing wrong with being intolerant to behavior that ACTUALLY hurts people.
Let me give you examples:
Beating the tar out of someone because they are gay/black/disabled, etc. is wrong. Because it causes ACTUAL harm ...
Refusing to bake a cake does not cause harm ...
See the difference? Do you know where I am going with this?
To be clear, anyone who compares slavery and uses words like harm in these situation is more than likely hypocritical when the shoe is on the other foot.
You're clueless. Do you understand dialetic methods...rhetorical questions?
You are even more clueless, what you said doesn't apply unless again she was doing it herself while denying it to others.
No ... your comment in regards to post makes little sense.
Exactly!
Christianity hurts (by exclusion) the homosexual community. Liberals see this act of intolerance as a moral act against the bigotry imposed by Christianity.
Tough. They claim to be tolerant, while acting intolerant. (hypocrisy)
We don't claim to be tolerant.
so you're admitting that the homo agenda is inclusion into and acceptance by Christianity?
All the more reason to fight bigotry/intolerance.