The Intolerance of 'Tolerance', the Inequality of 'Equality' and Left Wing Hypocrisy

[Dialogos]

"Well, THEY did it too!" Is this really your response? You really don't see how lame that is?

No, perhaps I was unclear.

My point is that you are a bigot and you don't even see your own bigotry.

All world religions and atheist movements have their moments to blush about and you regularly make prejudiced and bigoted statements against Christians and Christianity.

How would you have reacted if anyone would have posted...

If Judaism is "notorious" for anything...
If atheism is "notorious for anything...
If women are "notorious" for anything....

But its just fine to take pot shots at Christians, right?

Can you justify this?

:nono:

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.

Ah, I could have had a point in countering your bigoted statement but I wasn't gentle enough in confronting your anti-Christian bigotry?

Please...



You've been around TOL long enough to deal out your own brand of condescension. If you don't want to confront your own prejudices then don't. But you aren't a tender newbie here, you dealt it out but didn't like that your bigoted statement blew up in your face.

It is patently clear that you disdain conservative Christians for their stand on moral issues, it drips from every post you make on these topics. It oozes out every time you attempt to look down your nose at those you think are "ignorant" for taking a stand for their beliefs.

All the while ignoring just how much those "ignorant" people contribute to the fabric of the character of this country.

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.

Who appointed you as judge and jury?

Yes, I get a little rangled when I hear the church that Christ bled and died for getting dragged through the mud by those who watch from the sidelines and then have the self-righteous temerity to throw stones.

You want to criticize conservative Christians?

Go buy a pair of mud boots, pick up a chain-saw and join us the next time a hurricane slams a coastal city.

Until then, we'd much prefer you just say "thank you" rather than throw mud at the reputations of millions of hard working religiously conservative american citizens who are basically doing what the self-righteous critics won't.

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.

The unjust subjugation of forcing a gay couple to cross the street to find another baker to bake their cake.

Just awful...



Let me ask you a question, is it subjugating for a pastor to refuse to marry two men because of his religious conviction? Is that pastor, "oppressing" the gay couple?

I know you aren't much for answering questions but maybe on your next post you can make an exception...?

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.

And most of the Bolsheviks exterminating Jewish people in Russia were atheists.

Is it fair then to say:

"What atheism is most "notorious" for is its hatred of Jewish People and its genocide.

Is that a fair statement?

And yet every response you give is dripping with it. You couldn't even respond to my post without displaying your disgust.

It is absolutely true that I am disgusted by your anti-Christian bigotry.

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?

Nope.

Your turn to answer some questions now.

Why don't you start with the ones I posted at the end of my last post.


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?

 

[Angel4Truth]

No, perhaps I was unclear.

My point is that you are a bigot and you don't even see your own bigotry.

All world religions and atheist movements have their moments to blush about and you regularly make prejudiced and bigoted statements against Christians and Christianity.

How would you have reacted if anyone would have posted...

If Judaism is "notorious" for anything...
If atheism is "notorious for anything...
If women are "notorious" for anything....

But its just fine to take pot shots at Christians, right?

Can you justify this?

:nono:


Ah, I could have had a point in countering your bigoted statement but I wasn't gentle enough in confronting your anti-Christian bigotry?

Please...



You've been around TOL long enough to deal out your own brand of condescension. If you don't want to confront your own prejudices then don't. But you aren't a tender newbie here, you dealt it out but didn't like that your bigoted statement blew up in your face.

It is patently clear that you disdain conservative Christians for their stand on moral issues, it drips from every post you make on these topics. It oozes out every time you attempt to look down your nose at those you think are "ignorant" for taking a stand for their beliefs.

All the while ignoring just how much those "ignorant" people contribute to the fabric of the character of this country.



Who appointed you as judge and jury?

Yes, I get a little rangled when I hear the church that Christ bled and died for getting dragged through the mud by those who watch from the sidelines and then have the self-righteous temerity to throw stones.

You want to criticize conservative Christians?

Go buy a pair of mud boots, pick up a chain-saw and join us the next time a hurricane slams a coastal city.

Until then, we'd much prefer you just say "thank you" rather than throw mud at the reputations of millions of hard working religiously conservative american citizens who are basically doing what the self-righteous critics won't.


The unjust subjugation of forcing a gay couple to cross the street to find another baker to bake their cake.

Just awful...



Let me ask you a question, is it subjugating for a pastor to refuse to marry two men because of his religious conviction? Is that pastor, "oppressing" the gay couple?

I know you aren't much for answering questions but maybe on your next post you can make an exception...?


And most of the Bolsheviks exterminating Jewish people in Russia were atheists.

Is it fair then to say:

"What atheism is most "notorious" for is its hatred of Jewish People and its genocide.

Is that a fair statement?


It is absolutely true that I am disgusted by your anti-Christian bigotry.


Nope.

Excellent post.

Your turn to answer some questions now.

Why don't you start with the ones I posted at the end of my last post.


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?

opcorn:

 

[Jedidiah]

I don't think we disagree at all on the nature of the thing. To answer a few points.

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:

Town, my most urgent concern with this issue is that -- given that we both believe that LGBTQ/I behavior is sinful (meaning that we are Bible-believers) -- and given the disproportionate suicide rate among LGBTQ/I people -- we the republic, are encouraging sin that leads to death. If you are confident that we are not doing this, then that's enough for me, but can I require that you try to help me understand how or why ? Because I don't know either right now.

 

[Town Heretic]

​

Town, my most urgent concern with this issue is that -- given that we both believe that LGBTQ/I behavior is sinful (meaning that we are Bible-believers) -- and given the disproportionate suicide rate among LGBTQ/I people -- we the republic, are encouraging sin that leads to death.

I'm not sure about your data on that, or if it is accurate how much of that is historically reflective of the social response to homosexuality, how much that would contribute and what current statistics would have to say about it, but beyond that the Republic simply isn't and can't be concerned with sin beyond that which manifests itself in a way that impairs right, which is the only business of our government.

So your and my and the Hindu down the street or the Rabbi around the corner (a horrible Christmas movie idea) will have to meet the former outside of the legal process and as individuals in our witness and concern for their well being.

 

[The Beard of Zeus]

​

Town, my most urgent concern with this issue is that -- given that we both believe that LGBTQ/I behavior is sinful (meaning that we are Bible-believers) -- and given the disproportionate suicide rate among LGBTQ/I people -- we the republic, are encouraging sin that leads to death. If you are confident that we are not doing this, then that's enough for me, but can I require that you try to help me understand how or why ? Because I don't know either right now.

The only reason that suicide would be more prevalent for LBGTQ people would be that they traditionally have been insulted by others and sometimes rejected by friends or family or both. Usually for religious reasons. If the stigma wasn't there then there'd be far less suicides among these (mostly young) people

 

[PureX]

-- and given the disproportionate suicide rate among LGBTQ/I people -- we the republic, are encouraging sin that leads to death.

"We" have been encouraging the biased condemnation and hateful behavior that has sometimes driven these people to self-destruction. And "we" have been doing it in the name of God, which makes it all the more heinous. And it's long past time that "we" stop doing this.

 

[noguru]

No, I think you're missing a point. I have no idea why, but let's see if we can hash it out.


Right.


It's not mine. It's the state of the law in most jurisdictions now. A thing you can't help but be aware of.

You'd written:


There's the recognition and then,

I was responding to your off handed, "I don't care if" about someone else's right, so I framed it to demonstrate that you would and do actually care about the right, only not about the right of the minority in question to exercise it because you find the exercise objectionable in them. Not slippery, just responsive.


That sounds radical, but it's still the same contract with the state, the one I've never read people of faith decry when used by the atheist without a thought of or word to God. It has the same obligations and process of dissolution. In terms of contract it's the addition of a term in substitution. That's different, but the thing itself isn't changed, only the access to it has.


I didn't do anything of the sort. Hopefully the above clarifies my intent in relation to what you wrote.


Of course you would. I use would because your rights aren't being violated, denied, or in any form abrogated. That was a bit of my point. You don't care that others are denied that right. It's a bit different from your usage and the plainer truth.


I live in one of the most conservative states in the Union and it's about 70/30 opposed to their having that right. Which means your number is high, but still a majority here and I'd bet we're toward the top of the list in agreement. But who expects the majority to care if a minority they mostly disdain are deprived of anything? I don't. It would run contrary to the history of human nature.


That's a strained and invented dismissal.


The truth, however common, is never a platitude. You spoke of the opinion of most people in relation to that exercise of right. My response was to note that when right is subject to or established by fiat, by numbers, it ceases to be right at all. Our founders knew that which is why we are a Republic. The red herring bit is equally errant since nothing I wrote was aimed at distracting, but instead confronted.


Alleged and mutability of some unknown quantity. Rather diminishes its impact. And it doesn't impact the point at law.


No, it's true for some. Say one person in a million contracted cancer. To say it is true that cancer is a certainty for humans is to mislead, if unintentionally. It's true for some. Sexuality may be mutable for some or it may simply be that it exists across a spectrum and that there are those who wouldn't consider and those who would or could.

I couldn't really particularly respond to the platitude bit since it wasn't attached to any particular line or supported in any particular fashion.

On the propensity for sin.

Where I tend to address the law and answer assertions made in relation to it. As I noted, any number of rights can be used to promote either sin or virtue. Marriage is one of them.


Always a pleasure to agree on something that fundamental and important in the Christian walk.


At least.


I think he gets a bad rap on the point. I think the scars weren't just for Thomas. He may have simply been the more honest of the lot. It's obvious that Christ risen differed in appearance.


I think a new body would only bear the imprint of the inhabitant, given our atoms will be God knows where.

Sometimes people with feeble minds unable to grasp (complex?) ideas call those ideas slippery, simply because they are unable to grasp them. It is their deficiency, not a problem with the logic.

 

[noguru]

The only reason that suicide would be more prevalent for LBGTQ people would be that they traditionally have been insulted by others and sometimes rejected by friends or family or both. Usually for religious reasons. If the stigma wasn't there then there'd be far less suicides among these (mostly young) people

I see they all ran away, and you were banned, when you disclosed that ugly reality to the public on this site. I tell the actions of the powers that be here, and their "faithful" troops speaks volumes about their character. And it makes you wonder why they all pay homage to this ideology that prides itself on being oblivious.

 

[noguru]

"We" have been encouraging the biased condemnation and hateful behavior that has sometimes driven these people to self-destruction. And "we" have been doing it in the name of God, which makes it all the more heinous. And it's long past time that "we" stop doing this.

Crickets chirping.

No response from the folks who pride themselves in the fact that they wear blinders.

 

[Dialogos]

"We" have been encouraging the biased condemnation and hateful behavior that has sometimes driven these people to self-destruction.

Nice attempt at blame shifting.

suicide rates are also high among pedophiles and prostitutes. Should "we" stop telling pedophiles that their "sexual orientation" is disordered and that practicing pedophilia is sinful?

Should we start "celebrating" prostitution? Should would applaud when a woman decides that she was born a prostitute and wants to live the lifestyle of a prostitute?

Or should "we" help her see that God's design for her is better than her choices?

And "we" have been doing it in the name of God, which makes it all the more heinous. And it's long past time that "we" stop doing this.

We should stop speaking the truth in love?

Maybe you think we should approve of that which God condemns in the scripture.

BTW, I'm still waiting to hear you defend your accusation that "we" conservative bible believing Christians have all those verses wrong in the OT and the NT.


This thread, is still waiting for you.....

Talk about your chirping crickets.....

 

[I drank what?]

And in your opinion which person gets to (or panel of people get to) decide "God's law", would that be (a) right wing conservative Christian(s)?

nah let's have a left wing libby liberal decide

/preferably an extremely butt-hurt atheist one
//pun intended

:execute:

 

[noguru]

nah let's have a left wing libby liberal decide

/preferably an extremely butt-hurt atheist one
//pun intended

:execute:

Great response. It certainly illustrates your maturity level and ability to understand the real issues at hand.

 

[noguru]

Then you agree that believers should fight the intolerance of the gay community - thanks.

Yes, should such intolerance be clearly demonstrated. I don't think gays have any right to silence those who oppose their life style. Opposition to either side should be allowed to voice an opinion. But based on the hearing of both sides, a legislative decision should be reached.

 

[noguru]

We should stop speaking the truth in love?

Maybe you think we should approve of that which God condemns in the scripture.

Accepting that something occurs is not the same as approving it. God condemns all of us for our behavior. None are saved by their own actions.

We can all voice our opinions about what the Bible says regarding this. We are all free to point out what we think Scripture and the Gospel says about any behavior.

 

[patrick jane]

Originally Posted by Angel4Truth View Post
There is only One God. Are you calling Him petty?

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.

the problem is ANYTIME we "blame" God, "question" God's motives or infer that God propagates "ignorance" it's a form ofatrol: blasphemy. Satan is the author of CONFUSION, not God -

 

[Lighthouse]

nah let's have a left wing libby liberal decide

/preferably an extremely butt-hurt atheist one
//pun intended

:execute:

I think you mean "sarcasm intended" as there is no pun in your post.