The Rise of Intolerant Liberals

[daws101]

Country legend Sonny James has departed this life. I loved his singing. Fantastic artist, inducted into the Country Music Hall of Fame in 2006.

Sonny James was a douchebag.

 

[TemplarKormac]

When the "Christians" use their interpretation of Scripture to unnecessarily [cause, compel] humans [to] hate homosexuals

What? I'm have no clue what you said here, so I corrected the spelling and punctuation so I could better address this part.

I am well versed in the scriptures, and you don't see me using it to preach abject hatred of anyone.

when they seek to hide behind their narrow interpretations in order to discriminate against homosexuals

Narrow to you perhaps. You're quite the judge for someone who wants "Christians" to stop judging homosexuals.

they are leaning on the implied consent of all other American Christians for implicit approval.

WRONG. And this reveals you true feelings about Christians. You seem to think all Christians are this way.

They are leaning on the stated approval of God and his word. Not of other Christians, not of you or from me. God is the final authority.

What they utterly fail to understand is American Christianity is neither monolithic nor as repressed and repressive as they.

May I ask how they are "oppressing" homosexuals? If they are denied service in a bakery, they have the freedom to pick another. They have not been denied service everywhere. You want to stop Christian "oppression" yet seek to repress these "Christians" beliefs so as to grant homosexuals their right to accommodation. In essence you are no better than they are.

The alleged Christians would use their narrow view of Scripture as a black jack seeking to bludgeon rather than embrace, to condemn rather than forgive, to foster hate rather than true Christian love

And what you're doing here is condemning instead of forgiving.

They don't "embrace" homosexuality for a reason, surely you understand why, amidst the number of pages we have debated this. Instead you seek to bludgeon them into embracing your view and interpretation of Christianity.

Instead of loving them as fellow Christians, you're preaching hatred of your fellow Christians.

You are dishonest.

 

[9aces]

When was the last time a homosexual was able to give birth without the opposite sex being involved?

Invetro fertilization. .
Thanks for playing#

You just proved my point. Good you finally saw the light and agreed.

False! using random sperm is not the same as being involved.

Actually it is being involved. Since you can't do it without.

That depends on your definition of involved.

Well....can't be done without a member of the opposite sex, involved is a very accurate way of putting it.

You can try and parse the language to make it say something else, and you're trying awfully hard. Doesn't change the truth, just means you're extremely willing to lie to yourself.

 

[9aces]

When was the last time a homosexual was able to give birth without the opposite sex being involved?

Invetro fertilization. .
Thanks for playing#

You just proved my point. Good you finally saw the light and agreed.

False! using random sperm is not the same as being involved.

Actually it is being involved. Since you can't do it without.

Again...millions of straight couples use AI and IVF. What does that have to do with anything?

It means you need members of both sexes to contribute.

Call us when it can be done by only one.....and by call use I mean come back from the dead in a few thousand years assuming it's ever possible.

 

[daws101]

Invetro fertilization. .
Thanks for playing#

You just proved my point. Good you finally saw the light and agreed.

False! using random sperm is not the same as being involved.

Actually it is being involved. Since you can't do it without.

That depends on your definition of involved.

Well....can't be done without a member of the opposite sex, involved is a very accurate way of putting it.

You can try and parse the language to make it say something else, and you're trying awfully hard. Doesn't change the truth, just means you're extremely willing to lie to yourself.

If anyone is parsing it's you.
My comment is valid.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You're hung up on the actions of the Taliban when they see apostate, unbelievers, infidels. But their narrow interpretation of Scripture to impose their view of society reflects directly on those supposed Christians.

No it doesn't. There is no similarity between the two.

They both rely on dogma to foist their views in spite of what Scripture actually says.

You're comparing them to a group of terrorists who rather than "foist" their views on you, they will kill you if you don't embrace them. You don't understand the gravitas of your comparison. How can you not see this?

The "Christians" doing that also cherry pick the Biblical laws they want enforced.

No, they don't. You're lying. They only want to follow the teachings of their faith, not your interpretation of it.

They don't mind wearing cotton/poly blends in spite of the Biblical law stating that a sin. They presumably attend and participate in football games in spite of the Biblical laws stating that touching the skin of a dead pig makes them impure.

I was waiting for someone to bring that up. That is part of the mosaic laws that were fulfilled upon Jesus' death and resurrection. Such laws were rendered obsolete. Perhaps if you wouldn't CHERRY PICK the Bible like you demand of your "alleged Christians" and read it in context, perhaps you wouldn't be so judgmental---and hypocritical. Pay attention:

"Christ is the culmination [end] of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes. ... If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. "

Romans 10:4, 9

And if you're thinking "oh well that means God's condemnation of homosexuality in the Old Testament is no longer binding" guess again. God makes the same condemnation in the New Testament.

What does the New Testament say about homosexuality?

This Biblical mandate to avoid commerce with homosexuals is the most slender reed upon which an argument has ever been hung.

And yours is hung on but a chaff of wheat, worthless, easily separated and cast away from the wheat of reality. I already pointed out that God explicitly forbade homosexuality, and as such, any endorsement of it. Forcing them to abandon their beliefs is like forcing a homosexual to be heterosexual. Impossible according to you.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And for people who decry Christian religious oppression of homosexuality, they often seek approval from the same religion they blame for their oppression.

How do you handle this quandary?

 

[Papageorgio]

They both rely on dogma to foist their views in spite of what Scripture actually says. The "Christians" doing that also cherry pick the Biblical laws they want enforced.

Big difference. We don't enforce our interpretation of the scriptures by threatening to kill you. As far as cherrypicking is concerned, pro gay rights liberals, and certain gay people, often use the Bible to bash Christians over the head in order to justify why it allows for homosexuality.

Like I pointed out earlier in this thread. Liberals and homosexuals are intolerant of Christianity to a point. But when they find a Bible verse that they perceive to support their views/lifestyles, they become rabid Bible thumpers. It's ironic you would accuse us of trying to impose our faith on people when gays/liberals try to impose their version of Christianity on us.

I call that a double standard.

When the "Christians use their interpretation of Scripture to unnecessarily humans late homosexuals, when they seek to hide behind their narrow interpretations in order to discriminate against homosexuals, they are leaning on the implied consent of all other American Christians for implicit approval. What they utterly fail to understand is American Christianity is neither monolithic nor as repressed and repressive as they. Christians, by in large, hold forgiveness closest to their hearts. The alleged Christians would use their narrow view of Scripture as a black jack seeking to bludgeon rather than embrace, to condemn rather than forgive, to foster hate rather than true Christian love

Of course only YOUR interpretation of the Bible is correct. More of that tolerance I see.

 

[Wry Catcher]

How different is this from the Taliban?

A Christian pastor in Arizona is publicly calling for gays to be stoned to death, and is angry that other pastors are not following God’s command “to kill the gays.”
In a recent sermon Pastor David Berzins of Word of Truth Baptist Church condemned all those who would refuse to endorse God’s call to kill the gays. In particular, Berzins was angry with a fellow pastor who had refused to endorse far-right pastor Steven Anderson’s call for death to LGBT people.
Bezrin and Anderson both argue that Christians should follow God’s command, as stated in Deuteronomy, that gays be put to death.
- See more at: Arizona pastor publicly supports death by stoning for homosexuals

How many gays have these pastors killed?

How many gays have Muslims in America killed?

Fact...some Christians and some Muslims want to kill gays. Fact...in some countries Muslims and Christians kill gays. Fact, we live in America where we're not killing each other over this shit.

Hmmm...could it be more cultural than religious you think?

Not entirely true. They killed Matthew Shephard.

The idea that the murder of Shephardt was a hate crime was based on the defense case put forth by his killers.

IMO, it is not very convincing.

It seems far more like a drug related robbery that went bad.

You'll never need worry about jury duty.

 

[jillian]

Aberrant behavior like getting married, working, raising children.

When was the last time a homosexual was able to give birth without the opposite sex being involved?

Invetro fertilization. .
Thanks for playing#

You just proved my point. Good you finally saw the light and agreed.

so if I had in vitro, I somehow shouldn't be married?

you want to try that again?

Still need a member of the opposite sex. Point still valid.

if you say so.

i understand you'll look for any excuse to justify your bigotry.

 

[jillian]

They both rely on dogma to foist their views in spite of what Scripture actually says. The "Christians" doing that also cherry pick the Biblical laws they want enforced.

Big difference. We don't enforce our interpretation of the scriptures by threatening to kill you. As far as cherrypicking is concerned, pro gay rights liberals, and certain gay people, often use the Bible to bash Christians over the head in order to justify why it allows for homosexuality.

Like I pointed out earlier in this thread. Liberals and homosexuals are intolerant of Christianity to a point. But when they find a Bible verse that they perceive to support their views/lifestyles, they become rabid Bible thumpers. It's ironic you would accuse us of trying to impose our faith on people when gays/liberals try to impose their version of Christianity on us.

I call that a double standard.

When the "Christians use their interpretation of Scripture to unnecessarily humans late homosexuals, when they seek to hide behind their narrow interpretations in order to discriminate against homosexuals, they are leaning on the implied consent of all other American Christians for implicit approval. What they utterly fail to understand is American Christianity is neither monolithic nor as repressed and repressive as they. Christians, by in large, hold forgiveness closest to their hearts. The alleged Christians would use their narrow view of Scripture as a black jack seeking to bludgeon rather than embrace, to condemn rather than forgive, to foster hate rather than true Christian love

Of course only YOUR interpretation of the Bible is correct. More of that tolerance I see.

jesus never said word one about gays.

he did say a lot about taking care of the poor.

 

[Papageorgio]

They both rely on dogma to foist their views in spite of what Scripture actually says. The "Christians" doing that also cherry pick the Biblical laws they want enforced.

Big difference. We don't enforce our interpretation of the scriptures by threatening to kill you. As far as cherrypicking is concerned, pro gay rights liberals, and certain gay people, often use the Bible to bash Christians over the head in order to justify why it allows for homosexuality.

Like I pointed out earlier in this thread. Liberals and homosexuals are intolerant of Christianity to a point. But when they find a Bible verse that they perceive to support their views/lifestyles, they become rabid Bible thumpers. It's ironic you would accuse us of trying to impose our faith on people when gays/liberals try to impose their version of Christianity on us.

I call that a double standard.

When the "Christians use their interpretation of Scripture to unnecessarily humans late homosexuals, when they seek to hide behind their narrow interpretations in order to discriminate against homosexuals, they are leaning on the implied consent of all other American Christians for implicit approval. What they utterly fail to understand is American Christianity is neither monolithic nor as repressed and repressive as they. Christians, by in large, hold forgiveness closest to their hearts. The alleged Christians would use their narrow view of Scripture as a black jack seeking to bludgeon rather than embrace, to condemn rather than forgive, to foster hate rather than true Christian love

Of course only YOUR interpretation of the Bible is correct. More of that tolerance I see.

jesus never said word one about gays.

he did say a lot about taking care of the poor.

Not sure what that has do with my post.

 

[John93JK]

hmm, intolerant liberals...= conservatives?

 

[9aces]

When was the last time a homosexual was able to give birth without the opposite sex being involved?

Invetro fertilization. .
Thanks for playing#

You just proved my point. Good you finally saw the light and agreed.

so if I had in vitro, I somehow shouldn't be married?

you want to try that again?

Still need a member of the opposite sex. Point still valid.

if you say so.

i understand you'll look for any excuse to justify your bigotry.

Scientific fact is a pretty good answer to most questions that involve the illogical. So I stick with it.

 

[9aces]

You just proved my point. Good you finally saw the light and agreed.

False! using random sperm is not the same as being involved.

Actually it is being involved. Since you can't do it without.

That depends on your definition of involved.

Well....can't be done without a member of the opposite sex, involved is a very accurate way of putting it.

You can try and parse the language to make it say something else, and you're trying awfully hard. Doesn't change the truth, just means you're extremely willing to lie to yourself.

If anyone is parsing it's you.
My comment is valid.

And yet you can't refute the truth. You see this is why I stick to math and science when arguing points. Pesky things they are I know

 

[Nosmo King]

You're hung up on the actions of the Taliban when they see apostate, unbelievers, infidels. But their narrow interpretation of Scripture to impose their view of society reflects directly on those supposed Christians.

No it doesn't. There is no similarity between the two.

They both rely on dogma to foist their views in spite of what Scripture actually says.

You're comparing them to a group of terrorists who rather than "foist" their views on you, they will kill you if you don't embrace them. You don't understand the gravitas of your comparison. How can you not see this?

The "Christians" doing that also cherry pick the Biblical laws they want enforced.

No, they don't. You're lying. They only want to follow the teachings of their faith, not your interpretation of it.

They don't mind wearing cotton/poly blends in spite of the Biblical law stating that a sin. They presumably attend and participate in football games in spite of the Biblical laws stating that touching the skin of a dead pig makes them impure.

I was waiting for someone to bring that up. That is part of the mosaic laws that were fulfilled upon Jesus' death and resurrection. Such laws were rendered obsolete. Perhaps if you wouldn't CHERRY PICK the Bible like you demand of your "alleged Christians" and read it in context, perhaps you wouldn't be so judgmental---and hypocritical. Pay attention:

"Christ is the culmination [end] of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes. ... If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. "

Romans 10:4, 9

And if you're thinking "oh well that means God's condemnation of homosexuality in the Old Testament is no longer binding" guess again. God makes the same condemnation in the New Testament.

What does the New Testament say about homosexuality?

This Biblical mandate to avoid commerce with homosexuals is the most slender reed upon which an argument has ever been hung.

And yours is hung on but a chaff of wheat, worthless, easily separated and cast away from the wheat of reality. I already pointed out that God explicitly forbade homosexuality, and as such, any endorsement of it. Forcing them to abandon their beliefs is like forcing a homosexual to be heterosexual. Impossible according to you.

Forgive me for holding a very cynical view of these alleged Christians. For you see, never in my church has the minister ever admonished the congregation to avoid commerce with homosexuals. Rather, he preached to do unto others as we would have others do unto you. He preached to not cast the first stone for we all bear sins. And he preached to judge not lest we be judged. You know, the preaching so of Jesus Christ.

Then along came these homophobes who refused paying customers because those paying customers subscribe to a lifestyle they find abhorrent.

It has occurred to me that those bigoted homophobes sought some moral cover,,an aegis,behind which they might cower in the face of the outrage freedom loving Americans might shame and dismiss them.

"Hey! I know what we'll do! We'll say God told us to unnecessarily humiliate, discriminate and deny homosexuals our services! We'll call it a matter of 'religious freedom'! That way we can still get away with it."

Because I have never been exposed to such openly hatful and backward thinking, such a vile misuse of the teachings of a forgiving Savior strikes my ear as shameful,at least, hypocritical at best and a vile twisting of the teachings of my faith to serve an evil purpose at worst.

Before marriage equality, I would wager that there were no pulpits offering ecclesiastical cover for homophobes. Certainly throughout the south, churches twisted Christianity in similar ways to,provide cover for racists. It's not at all surprising that those driven by strict, narrow dogmatic thinking would once again seek shelter behind a pulpit spewing hatred rather than love,,condemnation rather than forgiveness and open thought rather than blind obedience to rigid dogma.

 

[bucs90]

They both rely on dogma to foist their views in spite of what Scripture actually says. The "Christians" doing that also cherry pick the Biblical laws they want enforced.

Big difference. We don't enforce our interpretation of the scriptures by threatening to kill you. As far as cherrypicking is concerned, pro gay rights liberals, and certain gay people, often use the Bible to bash Christians over the head in order to justify why it allows for homosexuality.

Like I pointed out earlier in this thread. Liberals and homosexuals are intolerant of Christianity to a point. But when they find a Bible verse that they perceive to support their views/lifestyles, they become rabid Bible thumpers. It's ironic you would accuse us of trying to impose our faith on people when gays/liberals try to impose their version of Christianity on us.

I call that a double standard.

When the "Christians use their interpretation of Scripture to unnecessarily humans late homosexuals, when they seek to hide behind their narrow interpretations in order to discriminate against homosexuals, they are leaning on the implied consent of all other American Christians for implicit approval. What they utterly fail to understand is American Christianity is neither monolithic nor as repressed and repressive as they. Christians, by in large, hold forgiveness closest to their hearts. The alleged Christians would use their narrow view of Scripture as a black jack seeking to bludgeon rather than embrace, to condemn rather than forgive, to foster hate rather than true Christian love

Of course only YOUR interpretation of the Bible is correct. More of that tolerance I see.

jesus never said word one about gays.

he did say a lot about taking care of the poor.

He sure did. That's why conservatives are more charitable than liberals. Fact.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

When was the last time a homosexual was able to give birth without the opposite sex being involved?

Duh, it takes a sperm and an egg, not necessarily sex between a man and woman.

From where does the sperm come?

From where does the egg come.

New human beings do not come into existence without the contribution of both a man and a woman—a father and a mother.

 

[TemplarKormac]

For you see, never in my church has the minister ever admonished the congregation to avoid commerce with homosexuals.

Are you Presbyterian?

Rather, he preached to do unto others as we would have others do unto you.

So, I'll ask this question again. You want these people to turn the other cheek, but why won't you? Why can't the homosexuals? You want homosexual clients to be treated fairly, but in turn you're asking someone with deeply held religious beliefs to ignore them for the sake of "being fair." I've been a fan of taking the middle ground, so why can't there be?

He preached to not cast the first stone for we all bear sins.

And as a Southern Baptist, homosexuality is included. Sounds intolerant I know, but that's how I was raised. You bear sin, I bear sin, they bear sin, the bakers bear sin, the homosexuals (besides being homosexuals) bear their own sins. But that doesn't justify why you're a) comparing your own fellow Christians to a group of Islamic terrorists, or b) asking them to ignore their faith to appease persons who engage in a practice the Bible clearly condemns.

And yes, you're casting stones too. We all are.

Then along came these homophobes who refused paying customers because those paying customers subscribe to a lifestyle they find abhorrent.

Those "homophobes" would much rather take a hit in revenue rather than compromise their beliefs. See, the "paying customers" already have power. The power to boycott. No blood, no mess, no sweat.

It has occurred to me that those bigoted homophobes sought some moral cover,,an aegis,behind which they might cower in the face of the outrage freedom loving Americans might shame and dismiss them.

You seem to think these "freedom loving Americans" majorly side with you. Interesting, because we all have our definitions of what "freedom loving Americans" are. What you're demanding is taking freedom from one person to grant it to the other. See, that's not equal treatment either.

It has occurred to me that while you speak out against hate you are showering these "bigots" and "homophobes" with it. You can't repay hate with hate.

"Hey! I know what we'll do! We'll say God told us to unnecessarily humiliate, discriminate and deny homosexuals our services! We'll call it a matter of 'religious freedom'! That way we can still get away with it."

Your fictitious theory notwithstanding...

You seem to think these people plan it out, deviously; cold and calculating. You believe that they collude with one another to target homosexual customers. Well the first flaw is that you can't tell someone is homosexual just by looking at them. Second, religious freedom is a thing, whether you like it or not. You can't just say "no, you must ignore your faith in order to obey the law." As far as I know, the law protects religious freedom too, and not just your right to be satisfied.

Because I have never been exposed to such openly hateful and backward thinking, such a vile misuse of the teachings of a forgiving Savior strikes my ear as shameful,at least, hypocritical at best and a vile twisting of the teachings of my faith to serve an evil purpose at worst.

Before judging others for their sins, get on your knees and beg God for forgiveness of yours. You have evil in your heart like these "Christians" you so relentlessly admonish. You feel it is your duty as a Christian to weed out and condemn what you perceive as evil and hateful. But remember this:

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."

--Matthew 7:21

This leads me to ask you three questions.

First, are you truly carrying out the will of God by repaying hatred with hatred and refusing to love your fellow Christians?

"If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen."

--1 John 4:20

"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another."

--John 13:34

Second, are you carrying out the will of God by refusing to forgive your fellow Christians?

"Then Peter came and said to Him, "Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times? Jesus said to him, "I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven."

--Matthew 18:21

Lastly, are you carrying out the will of God by judging others and not yourself?

"Do not judge, and you will not be judged; and do not condemn, and you will not be condemned; pardon, and you will be pardoned. "Give, and it will be given to you. They will pour into your lap a good measure--pressed down, shaken together, and running over. For by your standard of measure it will be measured to you in return."

--Luke 6:37-38

Before marriage equality, I would wager that there were no pulpits offering ecclesiastical cover for homophobes.

For a reason that I wish you would accept. We have gone over that reason a million times already. No need to re-elaborate.

Certainly throughout the south, churches twisted Christianity in similar ways to provide cover for racists.

I don't doubt it. Those were different times and different people. People who did twist the word of God to justify racism. However, the biggest difference of all is this:

While the Bible never condemns a person for the color of their skin, it clearly condemns them if they are practicing homosexuality.

It's not at all surprising that those driven by strict, narrow dogmatic thinking would once again seek shelter behind a pulpit spewing hatred rather than love

And regrettably, you are spewing hatred of your own. You have no love for those who don't share your views regarding homosexuality. You would use the pulpit to justify something sinful.

condemnation rather than forgiveness and open thought rather than blind obedience to rigid dogma

You are offering condemnation of your own rather than forgiving those who "follow a rigid dogma." You show no tolerance for open thought when you condemn others for holding such "rigid dogma."

You are no better than the people you speak out against. You hate them, you condemn them, you apparently don't forgive them, and you seemingly want to forbid them from holding different beliefs of Christianity.

You should understand that you have no standing to condemn anyone when you practice so many double standards.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

False! using random sperm is not the same as being involved.

A deadbeat dad is a deadbeat dad, regardless of the mechanism by which he sired the child that he subsequently neglects.