In Politics and Society: Is it Intolerant to be Intolerant of Intolerance?

[Statistikhengst]

[MENTION=20614]candycorn[/MENTION]...Gladly. Watch and learn.

I love how all you can do is quote Exodus or Leviticus, the Old Law or the Old Testament to show how Christians supposedly are intolerant or barbaric. Too bad you only read half of the Bible and get only half of the message.

It has been repeatedly drilled into that thick skull of yours that the Old Law isn't applicable to us as it was to the Israelites. We do not suggest that people be put to death for anything today, almost 2,000 years later. Jesus paid for that very death penalty mentioned in those verses cited in that video by dying on the cross. Let me quote you one verse that you neglect to recite, let me show you just how feeble your argument is. Romans Chapter 6, verse 23:

"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

You know what that gift is, candycorn? The death and resurrection of Jesus Christ to pay the sin debt of all mankind.

Should you ever bother to read both testaments of the Bible, you will understand that. You are patently disingenuous. You insult my intelligence, candycorn. You enrage me to no end with your rank dishonesty. You think we want to kill homosexuals or have them killed for being what they are? All it takes is for someone to ask forgiveness for their sin; turn from their sin; not atone for their sin by dying right on the spot. Have you lost your pea pickin' mind? (wait, nevermind)

I am not a "true Christian" by anyone's standards. candycorn, but I'm not one of those you can simply overwhelm with tired recitations about how "homosexuals should be put to death because the Bible says so." You know better than that. You won't get by with trashing my faith or the word of the Almighty God. Don't you dare give me that tired old "you shouldn't eat shellfish, keep slaves, be homosexual, wear clothing of two different threads or touch the skin of a dead animal or be put to death" nonsense. I've debated college students, professors and theology majors with the same mindset as you. It won't fly.

Have a seat. People like you really tick me off.

So you only buy part of the Bible...got it.

BTW...I didn't quote anything; just wondering how you justify only adhering to part of the Bible (coincidentally the only part that fits in with GOP supersition). If it's not convenient, you don't go for it. Save your, "the bible says" BS in the future....you can't cite what you don't believe in and use the parts you do buy and defer to it as some sort of authority.

I buy the whole Bible, not just one Testament, dimwit.

You're the one citing parts of the Old Testament to justify you flawed views of my faith. You indirectly quoted Leviticus and Exodus with your little video. You accuse me of "adhering to a part of the Bible" when you only quote stuff from the Old Testament yourself; the only part you pro-gay liberals stick to. You say "don't cite what you don't believe" then why cite a Bible you don't believe in?

I doubt you're a Christian candycorn, so your statement is riddled, pockmarked with double standards. Save your self from embarrassment in the future, don't lecture me about A) a book you've only partially read, and B) a faith you aren't even apart of. If you really cared what the Bible taught, you'd take the time to read the entire book, not just parts of it that suit your political viewpoints.

"Judge not, lest ye be judged".

There is also a theological dispute between you and me on this.

Yeschuah said more than once and was quoted by more than one apostle:

"I have come not to take away even one whit of the law, but rather, to add to it" - which means that Halakhah (jewish law) should still apply to all Christians. That being said, law is constantly being re-interpreted all the time.

What I find to be totally hypocritical of many Christians vis-a-vis homosexuality is that they usually very quickly indicate that that most of the Old Testament laws don't really apply, since the Covenant of Jesus - in their words - replaces the old Abrahamic Covenant, and yet, they suddenly grab at two verses, one from Leviticus, one from Deuteronomy, to condemn homosexuality, forgetting all the time that Jesus himself never even said one word about it. Not only that, the verbage used in the hebrew and aramaic in those two verses are entirely different. But that would be stuff for an entirely different thread.

And finally, not a whole lot of love of fellow man coming out of many Christians when it comes to this. I don't see them condemning smokers or drinkers with the same intensity, in spite of fact that destroying the temple of God (a phrase to describe the human body in the OT) is a deadly sin.

Food for thought.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Once more I am on record that I do not agree with Phil Robertson statement nor how he said it. I am not in any way condoning what he said or how he said it. I'm sure in retrospect, after he had time to think about it, he probably would have worked harder to be more tactful. It was an extemporaneous comment in an extemporaneous interview. But that is entirely irrelevent.

What is relevent is that if GLAAD wishes to be accepted for who and what they are, they would further that a great deal if they allow a Phil Robertson to be who and what he is.

One person say homosexuality is a sin and an abomination to the Lord.

One person says fundamentalist Christians are delusional and stupid and hateful.

It is fine that any of us disagree with either or both. We might choose to disassociate ourselves with either or both because we don't like being around them.

But neither deserves to be physically or materially threatened, coerced, punished, harmed, or destroyed because of the personal opinions they express.

Tolerance. Hmmm.

This is a christian pastor, 31 years old, on a radio program:



17:50 :



39:05: (asked by a listener about sex with his wife, what to do if she refuses)



51:00:

Well, the Bible actually teaches that gays should be executed… now, I’m not saying that I would ever kill anyone, because I never would, but I believe that the government should use the death penalty on murderers, rapists, homosexuals, and… that’s what the Bible teaches very clearly.

Who is this guy?

He is pastor of the "Faithful Word Baptist Church" in Tempe, AZ.

This is the same "Christian" pastor who wanted Obama to die of brain cancer. One who prayed the "imprecatory" prayer alot.

Hmmmmm, tolerance.

And then there is Bradlee Dean, who was once a big fan of Michele Bachmann's, who also thought that gay people should be executed.


Hmmmm, tolerance.

So, when gay people or their straight allies (that would be me) are displeased when someone like the Duck yahoo dude says stupid stuff, we are intolerant? Really?

There is a group of "Christians" who claim to be "Christians" who spread nothing more than hatred and then get their dander all up when people call them on the carpet for it. And to think that they throw the main word of Jesus right out the window because they hate gays so much. Wow. Simply wow.

Everytime I think that radical Christian Right cannot possibly get more batshit crazy, it surprises me and proves that it can.


I totally support Mr. Crazyass Duckdude's right to say anything he wants, and if people ignore or boycott or laugh at him, then that's his own problem. Anyone here seriously think that he was tolerant?

Well, hold on a sec. Nobody should take one person's rants and attribute them to the entire group in my view. I know that we do that here all the time but it's something I wish we didn't do. So I don't think you can look at this guy and say, "well, you see, Intolernance."

To your point however, I don't think it is a coincidence that almost down to the last woman/man that the debate about this guy from DD breaks along political party lines. Which is why I call bullshit on the supposed theme of this thread and dub it just a thinly disguised attempt to cloak bigotry in some sort of moral cloth; and not a particularly effective attempt at that. If there was any true ambiguity about the man and his actions; you'd get a mix of people who support and a mix of people who think A&E was right for what they did.

Me, I fully support his right to say (and whomever is reading this as well) whatever they want as long as they recognize that there may be consequences.

That the group that supports constantly invokes the Bible is hilarious since we've proven that ONLY those parts of the bible that align with GOP superstition concerning women and homosexuals are what is taken; the rest may as well be flushed down the toilet it seems. You can't accept some parts of the Bible and just ignore other parts and still use the Holy text as any sort of authority.

The bolded: I did not do that. Go re-read.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Once more I am on record that I do not agree with Phil Robertson statement nor how he said it. I am not in any way condoning what he said or how he said it. I'm sure in retrospect, after he had time to think about it, he probably would have worked harder to be more tactful. It was an extemporaneous comment in an extemporaneous interview. But that is entirely irrelevent.

What is relevent is that if GLAAD wishes to be accepted for who and what they are, they would further that a great deal if they allow a Phil Robertson to be who and what he is.

One person say homosexuality is a sin and an abomination to the Lord.

One person says fundamentalist Christians are delusional and stupid and hateful.

It is fine that any of us disagree with either or both. We might choose to disassociate ourselves with either or both because we don't like being around them.

But neither deserves to be physically or materially threatened, coerced, punished, harmed, or destroyed because of the personal opinions they express.

Tolerance. Hmmm.

This is a christian pastor, 31 years old, on a radio program:



17:50 :



39:05: (asked by a listener about sex with his wife, what to do if she refuses)



51:00:

Well, the Bible actually teaches that gays should be executed… now, I’m not saying that I would ever kill anyone, because I never would, but I believe that the government should use the death penalty on murderers, rapists, homosexuals, and… that’s what the Bible teaches very clearly.

Who is this guy?

He is pastor of the "Faithful Word Baptist Church" in Tempe, AZ.

This is the same "Christian" pastor who wanted Obama to die of brain cancer. One who prayed the "imprecatory" prayer alot.

Hmmmmm, tolerance.

And then there is Bradlee Dean, who was once a big fan of Michele Bachmann's, who also thought that gay people should be executed.


Hmmmm, tolerance.

So, when gay people or their straight allies (that would be me) are displeased when someone like the Duck yahoo dude says stupid stuff, we are intolerant? Really?

There is a group of "Christians" who claim to be "Christians" who spread nothing more than hatred and then get their dander all up when people call them on the carpet for it. And to think that they throw the main word of Jesus right out the window because they hate gays so much. Wow. Simply wow.

Everytime I think that radical Christian Right cannot possibly get more batshit crazy, it surprises me and proves that it can.


I totally support Mr. Crazyass Duckdude's right to say anything he wants, and if people ignore or boycott or laugh at him, then that's his own problem. Anyone here seriously think that he was tolerant?

Stat, as much as we're good buddies and all, is there much tolerance in you trying to label Christians based off of one Christian pastor? What tolerance is there in religious stereotypes?

Would that be similar to labeling Obama based upon his attending a church where the Reverend Wright preached?

 

[Statistikhengst]

As far as the bible goes, Jesus taught that he did not come to change the Law or the Prophets. So it is easy to assume that Old Law, as people say, still applies. However, the only way to heaven is through the Truth and the Light (Jesus). Every sin is equal in that it brings is from God, and every sin has unequal punishment. It is not our place, however, to judge. Remove the plank from your own eye. Love your neighbor and your enemy. All that is in the bible, allowing us to live together in peace and love. That is the bible.

Back to OP, the redundancy of redundancy is redundant. Where should the line be drawn of in tolerating intolerance? Well, if you ask the Dixie Chicks or Obama's former pastor I'm sure you'll receive two very different answers. As citizens the only thing we SHOULD be worried about is our rights. If anybody can use their first amendment rights and have nothing stolen from them or their lives affected due to the exercise of their free speech; then that is what I support. The Bill of Rights is the law of the land. 'Hate speech' (made up term) and 'hate crimes' (made up term) are the most vague and over utilized accusations this country has ever known. There is free speech, and that's it. Any attempt to paint a picture of someone's words is cowardice and an attempt to subjugate that person to crowd rule. Speak your mind, be different, and enjoy your freedoms.

Yes! A member who gets it! Fantastic. I think I am going to like you.

Yeschuah lived by Halakhah (Jewish Law) and observed the Mitzvoteem (commandments). He was addressed, according to the NT, as "Rabbi", which meant that he was versed in the Torah and lived by it. All of the things he did in the NT that purportedly upset pharisees and saducees are actually things that are not forbidden in the OT. Under the principle of Pikuach Nefesh (google is your friend!), all of these things are allowed, for instance, healing a leper or touching a whore.

BTW, the reference to Yeshuah as Rabbi should have meant that he had a wife and kids. I am not saying he was and/or had, but I am saying that that was the paradigm of the day.

 

[candycorn]

[MENTION=20614]candycorn[/MENTION]...Gladly. Watch and learn.

I love how all you can do is quote Exodus or Leviticus, the Old Law or the Old Testament to show how Christians supposedly are intolerant or barbaric. Too bad you only read half of the Bible and get only half of the message.

It has been repeatedly drilled into that thick skull of yours that the Old Law isn't applicable to us as it was to the Israelites. We do not suggest that people be put to death for anything today, almost 2,000 years later. Jesus paid for that very death penalty mentioned in those verses cited in that video by dying on the cross. Let me quote you one verse that you neglect to recite, let me show you just how feeble your argument is. Romans Chapter 6, verse 23:

"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

You know what that gift is, candycorn? The death and resurrection of Jesus Christ to pay the sin debt of all mankind.

Should you ever bother to read both testaments of the Bible, you will understand that. You are patently disingenuous. You insult my intelligence, candycorn. You enrage me to no end with your rank dishonesty. You think we want to kill homosexuals or have them killed for being what they are? All it takes is for someone to ask forgiveness for their sin; turn from their sin; not atone for their sin by dying right on the spot. Have you lost your pea pickin' mind? (wait, nevermind)

I am not a "true Christian" by anyone's standards. candycorn, but I'm not one of those you can simply overwhelm with tired recitations about how "homosexuals should be put to death because the Bible says so." You know better than that. You won't get by with trashing my faith or the word of the Almighty God. Don't you dare give me that tired old "you shouldn't eat shellfish, keep slaves, be homosexual, wear clothing of two different threads or touch the skin of a dead animal or be put to death" nonsense. I've debated college students, professors and theology majors with the same mindset as you. It won't fly.

Have a seat. People like you really tick me off.

So you only buy part of the Bible...got it.

BTW...I didn't quote anything; just wondering how you justify only adhering to part of the Bible (coincidentally the only part that fits in with GOP supersition). If it's not convenient, you don't go for it. Save your, "the bible says" BS in the future....you can't cite what you don't believe in and use the parts you do buy and defer to it as some sort of authority.

I buy the whole Bible, not just one Testament, dimwit.

You're the one citing parts of the Old Testament to justify you flawed views of my faith. You indirectly quoted Leviticus and Exodus with your little video. You accuse me of "adhering to a part of the Bible" when you only quote stuff from the Old Testament yourself; the only part you pro-gay liberals stick to. You say "don't cite what you don't believe" then why cite a Bible you don't believe in?

I doubt you're a Christian candycorn, so your statement is riddled, pockmarked with double standards. Save your self from embarrassment in the future, don't lecture me about A) a book you've only partially read, and B) a faith you aren't even apart of. If you really cared what the Bible taught, you'd take the time to read the entire book, not just parts of it that suit your political viewpoints.

Again, I cited no-one. I simply asked you to justify only beliving in parts of the bible; the result? Personal attacks instead.

So you're for selling your daughter into slavery? If you buy the whole thing, apparently, you are for that. You're obviously against working on the Sabbath (or any other day for that matter) so you're okay there.

 

[candycorn]

I heard this morning on the way to Yoga class that Cracker Barrel was bowing to pressure to put DD stuff back on the shelf. Wonder why Foxy hasn't lambasted those who applied the pressure on Cracker Barrel...she lambasted GLAAD for pressuring A&E.

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment...-duck-dynasty-items-shelves/story?id=21302746

Fire up the hair-splitter and tell us how it's different when the right wing kooks do it honey.

 

[BDBoop]

Wasn't it One Million Moms who tried to get JCPenney to fire Ellen?

 

[JohnL.Burke]

As I've always said about the GOP:


To women..."Make me some Pie."
To minorities..."Serve my pie."
To the poor..."Get your own pie"
To the non-christians..."IF you were a "real" American, you'd agree our pie is best.

I guess all crazy stereotypes have some truth to them.

Of course as we all know that liberals don't make pies. They steal the pies from the bakers and give them to their political supporters.
You can have my pie when you pry it from my cold dead fingers.

The only problem with you guys is that all of those groups up there are voters... You guys have run out of people to alienate.

You have a point. The only way the GOP could have alienated anymore people was if they had endorsed Obamacare.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

Once more I am on record that I do not agree with Phil Robertson statement nor how he said it. I am not in any way condoning what he said or how he said it. I'm sure in retrospect, after he had time to think about it, he probably would have worked harder to be more tactful. It was an extemporaneous comment in an extemporaneous interview. But that is entirely irrelevent.

What is relevent is that if GLAAD wishes to be accepted for who and what they are, they would further that a great deal if they allow a Phil Robertson to be who and what he is.

One person say homosexuality is a sin and an abomination to the Lord.

One person says fundamentalist Christians are delusional and stupid and hateful.

It is fine that any of us disagree with either or both. We might choose to disassociate ourselves with either or both because we don't like being around them.

But neither deserves to be physically or materially threatened, coerced, punished, harmed, or destroyed because of the personal opinions they express.

Tolerance. Hmmm.

This is a christian pastor, 31 years old, on a radio program:



17:50 :



39:05: (asked by a listener about sex with his wife, what to do if she refuses)



51:00:

Well, the Bible actually teaches that gays should be executed… now, I’m not saying that I would ever kill anyone, because I never would, but I believe that the government should use the death penalty on murderers, rapists, homosexuals, and… that’s what the Bible teaches very clearly.

Who is this guy?

He is pastor of the "Faithful Word Baptist Church" in Tempe, AZ.

This is the same "Christian" pastor who wanted Obama to die of brain cancer. One who prayed the "imprecatory" prayer alot.

Hmmmmm, tolerance.

And then there is Bradlee Dean, who was once a big fan of Michele Bachmann's, who also thought that gay people should be executed.


Hmmmm, tolerance.

So, when gay people or their straight allies (that would be me) are displeased when someone like the Duck yahoo dude says stupid stuff, we are intolerant? Really?

There is a group of "Christians" who claim to be "Christians" who spread nothing more than hatred and then get their dander all up when people call them on the carpet for it. And to think that they throw the main word of Jesus right out the window because they hate gays so much. Wow. Simply wow.

Everytime I think that radical Christian Right cannot possibly get more batshit crazy, it surprises me and proves that it can.


I totally support Mr. Crazyass Duckdude's right to say anything he wants, and if people ignore or boycott or laugh at him, then that's his own problem. Anyone here seriously think that he was tolerant?

Well, hold on a sec. Nobody should take one person's rants and attribute them to the entire group in my view. I know that we do that here all the time but it's something I wish we didn't do. So I don't think you can look at this guy and say, "well, you see, Intolernance."

To your point however, I don't think it is a coincidence that almost down to the last woman/man that the debate about this guy from DD breaks along political party lines. Which is why I call bullshit on the supposed theme of this thread and dub it just a thinly disguised attempt to cloak bigotry in some sort of moral cloth; and not a particularly effective attempt at that. If there was any true ambiguity about the man and his actions; you'd get a mix of people who support and a mix of people who think A&E was right for what they did.

Me, I fully support his right to say (and whomever is reading this as well) whatever they want as long as they recognize that there may be consequences.

That the group that supports constantly invokes the Bible is hilarious since we've proven that ONLY those parts of the bible that align with GOP superstition concerning women and homosexuals are what is taken; the rest may as well be flushed down the toilet it seems. You can't accept some parts of the Bible and just ignore other parts and still use the Holy text as any sort of authority.

You're wrong of course. Most people side with the right of Duck Dynasty to express opinions without fear of censorship or other repercussions. This includes democrats and gays. John Stewart, Andrew Sullivan,etc.
You don't understand that this is a free speech issue and not a religious issue. Your own intolerance of free speech limits your ability to argue on the topic at hand. Your authoritarian views wont allow it.
Gay CNN Anchor Defends 'Duck Dynasty' Star - Video

 

[NYcarbineer]

Tolerance cannot be a one way street. If we expect others to allow us to be who and what we are no matter how much they think we are wrong or do not agree with our beliefs, opinions, or lifestyle, then the same courtesy must be extended to others.

Phil Robertson believes the Bible teaches a particular concept re homosexuality. But he does not suggest that homosexuals should not be allowed to live as they choose, say what they think, be who they are. He is adamently opposed to disrespecting or harming gay people in any way.

How about you reconcile your claim about Robertson with his own words from 2010:


"Women with women. Men with men. They committed indecent acts with one another. And they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. They're full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant God haters. They are heartless. They are faithless. They are senseless. They are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil."

'Duck Dynasty's' Phil Robertson: Five more debate-worthy quotes - latimes.com

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
But neither deserves to be physically or materially threatened, coerced, punished, harmed, or destroyed because of the personal opinions they express.

That is nonsensical. How do you propose to immunize a person from public opinion if public opinion is a component in how that person makes money?

Or should I remember that in this thread you called for the criminalization of public opinion that might negatively impact someone's profession.

 

[deltex1]

Tolerance cannot be a one way street. If we expect others to allow us to be who and what we are no matter how much they think we are wrong or do not agree with our beliefs, opinions, or lifestyle, then the same courtesy must be extended to others.

Phil Robertson believes the Bible teaches a particular concept re homosexuality. But he does not suggest that homosexuals should not be allowed to live as they choose, say what they think, be who they are. He is adamently opposed to disrespecting or harming gay people in any way.

How about you reconcile your claim about Robertson with his own words from 2010:


"Women with women. Men with men. They committed indecent acts with one another. And they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. They're full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant God haters. They are heartless. They are faithless. They are senseless. They are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil."

'Duck Dynasty's' Phil Robertson: Five more debate-worthy quotes - latimes.com

Is there something intolerable about believing that?

 

[TemplarKormac]

So you only buy part of the Bible...got it.

BTW...I didn't quote anything; just wondering how you justify only adhering to part of the Bible (coincidentally the only part that fits in with GOP supersition). If it's not convenient, you don't go for it. Save your, "the bible says" BS in the future....you can't cite what you don't believe in and use the parts you do buy and defer to it as some sort of authority.

I buy the whole Bible, not just one Testament, dimwit.

You're the one citing parts of the Old Testament to justify you flawed views of my faith. You indirectly quoted Leviticus and Exodus with your little video. You accuse me of "adhering to a part of the Bible" when you only quote stuff from the Old Testament yourself; the only part you pro-gay liberals stick to. You say "don't cite what you don't believe" then why cite a Bible you don't believe in?

I doubt you're a Christian candycorn, so your statement is riddled, pockmarked with double standards. Save your self from embarrassment in the future, don't lecture me about A) a book you've only partially read, and B) a faith you aren't even apart of. If you really cared what the Bible taught, you'd take the time to read the entire book, not just parts of it that suit your political viewpoints.

"Judge not, lest ye be judged".

There is also a theological dispute between you and me on this.

Yeschuah said more than once and was quoted by more than one apostle:

"I have come not to take away even one whit of the law, but rather, to add to it" - which means that Halakhah (jewish law) should still apply to all Christians. That being said, law is constantly being re-interpreted all the time.

What I find to be totally hypocritical of many Christians vis-a-vis homosexuality is that they usually very quickly indicate that that most of the Old Testament laws don't really apply, since the Covenant of Jesus - in their words - replaces the old Abrahamic Covenant, and yet, they suddenly grab at two verses, one from Leviticus, one from Deuteronomy, to condemn homosexuality, forgetting all the time that Jesus himself never even said one word about it. Not only that, the verbage used in the hebrew and aramaic in those two verses are entirely different. But that would be stuff for an entirely different thread.

And finally, not a whole lot of love of fellow man coming out of many Christians when it comes to this. I don't see them condemning smokers or drinkers with the same intensity, in spite of fact that destroying the temple of God (a phrase to describe the human body in the OT) is a deadly sin.

Food for thought.

Actually, Stat, the Jewish law was not intended to make men right before God:

19 “For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”

Galatians 2:19-21

19 Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. 20 A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one.

21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law.

Galatians 3:19-21

For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law, but under grace.

-Romans 6:14-15

For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

-John 1:17

But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

-Romans 7:6

For if you are trying to make yourselves right with God by keeping the law, you have been cut off from Christ! You have fallen away from God's grace.

-Galatians 5:4

In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you."

-Luke 22:20

I admire your attempt at apologetics Stat, but this is what the Bible says about the Old Law. The ceremonial law is defunct. The moral law isn't. But the death penalty for not keeping the moral law has been paid for by the blood of Jesus Christ himself.

My reason for not following the ceremonial law in the Old Testament:

By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.

-Hebrews 8:13

The New Testament covenantal system completely does away with what is deemed as "barbaric" practices by us today, in that day and age they weren't. They suited the times and the peoples for which they were written. You speak of judging, yet here you are judging the moral standards of the Old Testament. Simply put, in order for you to raise a valid objection against the moral statutes of the Old Testament, you must provide a standard by which such judgments can be made. You speak of judging, but judge Christians based on their "intolerance" of homosexuality. You speak of judgement, yet you don't quote the entire verse in Matthew 7: 1-6:

“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

6 “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.

You speak of judgement, but judge any and all Christians by laws and commands that you yourself don't follow. Any pro-gay liberal who judges a Christian for his supposed intolerance should first address his own intolerance of said Christian's attitude towards homosexuality. Any Christian who mistreats or abuses a homosexual is wrong. Any homosexual who mistreats or abuses a Christian is wrong. Naturally those who abuse "God's temple" will have it taken from them, hence the sin of such being deadly. The punishment is clear, there is no need for us to go ballistic over it.

 

[Vox]

Tolerance cannot be a one way street. If we expect others to allow us to be who and what we are no matter how much they think we are wrong or do not agree with our beliefs, opinions, or lifestyle, then the same courtesy must be extended to others.

Phil Robertson believes the Bible teaches a particular concept re homosexuality. But he does not suggest that homosexuals should not be allowed to live as they choose, say what they think, be who they are. He is adamently opposed to disrespecting or harming gay people in any way.

How about you reconcile your claim about Robertson with his own words from 2010:


"Women with women. Men with men. They committed indecent acts with one another. And they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. They're full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant God haters. They are heartless. They are faithless. They are senseless. They are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil."

'Duck Dynasty's' Phil Robertson: Five more debate-worthy quotes - latimes.com

you ignorant idiot it was not HIS words and it was already pointed out to you, but you are too stupid to realize it and parade your ignorance yet again

the leftardism IS a mental disorder

 

[NYcarbineer]

Tolerance cannot be a one way street. If we expect others to allow us to be who and what we are no matter how much they think we are wrong or do not agree with our beliefs, opinions, or lifestyle, then the same courtesy must be extended to others.

Phil Robertson believes the Bible teaches a particular concept re homosexuality. But he does not suggest that homosexuals should not be allowed to live as they choose, say what they think, be who they are. He is adamently opposed to disrespecting or harming gay people in any way.

How about you reconcile your claim about Robertson with his own words from 2010:


"Women with women. Men with men. They committed indecent acts with one another. And they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. They're full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant God haters. They are heartless. They are faithless. They are senseless. They are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil."

'Duck Dynasty's' Phil Robertson: Five more debate-worthy quotes - latimes.com

Is there something intolerable about believing that?

Probably not to you. Maybe you've just brought up a relevant point. Maybe the real reason Phil Robertson is getting such zealous support from the Right has nothing to do with imaginary claims of free speech,

maybe it's nothing more than the fact that most on the Right agree with him.

Of course many may also be sly enough not to openly acknowledge such an agreement, but, as they say,

actions speak louder than words, and the actions of the Right on this affair are loud and clear.

 

[Vox]

Words written many years before Robertson spoke them.

Romans Chapter 1.

you expect a leftard to be at least superficially educated on the subject?

Truth be told I had to look it up myself.

This was in the top five of each search I did.
What does Romans 1:26-27 say about homosexuality?

the wording is such that you immediately know it is a quote. Putting it to google shows the source immediately.
It is actually Romans 1:27-32 which is the full paragraph in context.

 

[Foxfyre]

Some here don't seem to be getting it. The issue is not whether we agree with or approve of what Robertson said or how he said it. (I attribute that to reading dysfuncion as I don't know how many times now that I've said I don't agree with Robertson'a interpretation of what the Bible teaches nor do I approve of the way he said it in that particular bruhaha.)

That is not the point.

Nor do I see this as a free speech issue. That is not the point either. Nor does it matter what Bible verse is used or how that verse is interpreted.

The point here is the issue of tolerance: the unalienable right of each of us to be who and what we are with impunity so long as we do not interfere with the rights of others.

There is no right to be 'accepted' by anybody. There is no right for Robertson's fundamentalist views to be accepted or acceptable to GLAAD than there is a right for gay people to be seen as no different from heterosexuals by a Phil Robertson. Tolerance is not accepting or even respecting the beliefs or point of view of another. Tolerance is not being silent when we think somebody else is wrong in their views. But tolerance does allow each person his point of view without fear of angry mobs and retribution by those who just don't like what he/she says. Each is allowed to be who and what he/she is.

To seek to threaten, punish, hurt, and/or destroy somebody for no other reason than they express an opinion you don't like is pure evil.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
You're wrong of course. Most people side with the right of Duck Dynasty to express opinions without fear of censorship or other repercussions. This includes democrats and gays. John Stewart, Andrew Sullivan,etc.
You don't understand that this is a free speech issue and not a religious issue. Your own intolerance of free speech limits your ability to argue on the topic at hand. Your authoritarian views wont allow it.
]

That's a kneeslapper coming from you, given that you made this post one month ago:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/8165967-post105.html

A post touting the conservative organization TruthRevolt, which is a group dedicated to doing whatever they can to harm liberals in broadcasting.

Your post cites their petition to get Martin Bashir off the air, gee, wasn't Bashir exercising what you call his free speech rights?

Wasn't he doing what you believe he should be able to do without 'repercussions'?

You see people, there is no conservative in this thread who isn't a hypocritical phoney. Their posts are here to prove it.

 

[Vox]

well, posting quotes form the Romans PR used in a sermon and pretending them to be PR OWN ones - when it already has been pointed out yesterday is a dishonest method of a discussion and dishonesty does cause emotional response which goes beyond the standard meaning of "tolerance".

still it is a deserved response.
Repeated lying and pretending not to understand the point needs to be called out.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Some here don't seem to be getting it so far as my and most of our arguments are concerned. The issue is not whether we agree with or approve of what Robertson said or how he said it. (I attribute that to reading dysfuncion as I don't know how many times now that I've said I don't agree with Robertson'a interpretation of what the Bible teaches nor do I approve of the way he said it in that particular bruhaha.)

That is not the point.

Nor do I see this as a free speech issue. That is not the point either.

The point here is the issue of tolerance: the unalienable right of each of us to be who and what we are with impunity so long as we do not interfere with the rights of others.

There is no right to be 'accepted' by anybody. There is no right for Robertson's fundamentalist views to be accepted or acceptable to GLAAD than there is a right for gay people to be seen as no different from heterosexuals by a Phil Robertson. But if there is tolerance, each is allowed their own opinions and point of view by the other. Each is allowed to be who and what he is/they are.

To seek to threaten, punish, hurt, and/or destroy somebody for no other reason than they express an opinion you don't like is pure evil.

Then you're pure evil for wanting to criminalize what GLAAD did.