Tolerance and Bigotry: What happens when the shoe is on the other foot?

[Cecilie1200]

Intolerance of Intolerance is not Intolerance.

You have the right to be wrong. It is legal to support stupidity in this country.

Except he's right. There's nothing wrong with being intolerant of intolerance.

Now who needs definitions?

"Not wrong" is not the same as "not intolerance".

 

[Cecilie1200]

Where's the list of issues the left is willing to be tolerant on? How about Christian faith in regards to LGB issues? Are you willing to be open-minded and tolerant on that?

What? And advocate discrimination against gays? Are you mad?

So you are saying you are not open-minded and tolerant of our beliefs? Then why would you expect us to be tolerant of yours? Stalemate.

I'm saying that to be tolerant of intolerance is intolerance.

So I should not tolerate your intolerance of our beliefs? Good. We agree.

If you don't understand the difference between disagreement and intolerance, oh well, give Sarah Palin a call. She will teach you everything you need to know.

In other words, you just read the bumper sticker. You didn't get Mommy to explain it to you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

ISIS Executes Pigeon and Bird Breeders in Diyala Iraq - NBC News

It is not about refusing business but doing business that benefits the community as a whole.

You can't do business with a business that has been shut down because a thin skinned customer sued them under the law because he or she had his or her feelings hurt by the religious consciences of the proprietor. Tell me, you speak of business and community... yet this kind of behavior, (i.e. suing a religious cake maker for not catering a gay wedding, and subsequently having them eviscerated from the marketplace) only harms the community, does it not? The glue that should bind business and community should be tolerance, on both sides of the spectrum, but neither side is willing to show it.

Nobody wants to meet in the middle, simply because they are too busy prejudging each other.

Yes, actually that's true. You are harming the entire community by eliminate jobs and services, when you drive someone out of business because they have a religious belief you don't like.

But... I for one, will just open another business. You shut that down, and I'll open another. Some you will drive out, and they'll go somewhere else that is more tolerant, and benefit that community.

However, what you will not do, is change our faith. You are not going to change what we believe, or us worshiping our G-d. That's never going away.

Prejudging? We're not prejudging anything. Homosexuality is a sin in our belief. That's what G-d said, and that's what we believe. There is nothing prejudging about it.

and yet churches and even the pope are welcoming gays. Some are even being led by gay ministers

Jesus did not say anything about it being a sin. He did mention not throwing stones if you are not without sin.

so can you truly say you are without any sin at all, at any time in you life?

How about prejudice and hate? Not loving your brother? Defaming others? Not treating others are equals or as you would want others to treat you?

Ahhh, the ever-popular "red letter Christianity". The Bible is a big book, Christ's ministry on Earth only appears in four books of it, and we're supposed to ignore the entire rest of the tome and all its context because you want to play, "Jesus didn't say it, so it doesn't count".

"I don't agree with you" is hardly "throwing stones". If you get confused again, ask me and I'll be happy to throw a rock at you to illustrate the difference.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Jesus did not say anything about it being a sin.

We both know that isn't true.

"They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-- who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

Romans 1:25-27 NIV

That is a direct condemnation of Homosexuality. And since the person who wrote this was Paul, then it serves to reason that as Jesus' disciple, he was reflecting Jesus' and ultimately God's will. Thusly one can only reason that both Jesus and God would condemn homosexuality as sinful, and Paul was merely conveying such sentiment.

Paul was not a disciple and did not follow Jesus till after his death. A lot of what Paul taught had nothing to do with Jesus or what he said.

In the gospels, even Luke and Thomas, Jesus did not speak about homosexuality

He did speak about loving thy brother. If we are all brothers, why the hate or condemnation of others?

Hate is a greater sin than love.

Ehrmigerd, no one who wasn't a direct disciple can have anything to teach us about Christianity!

Right up there with "red-letter Christianity".

I would hope that people who love me would tell me when I'm being a dumbass, rather than letting me continue because it makes them feel better about themselves as "loving people".

But then, I don't value self-delusion and demand that everyone else humor my fantasies, so . . .

 

[Cecilie1200]

Where are the witnesses that heard Jesus speak to him or saw his blindness till he converted, or accepted jesus? Jesus has witness to his life and death, but paul had no witnesses to his encounter with jesus.

"1 And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest,

2 And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.

3 And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:

4 And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

5 And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.

7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man."

Acts 9:1-7

and people with migraines can see lights and auras. People can have hallucinations for a number of reason. People can suffer from bi-polar and act like a totally different person. People can become paranoid and believe thing that are not real.
No one saw or head Jesus talking to him. People can have seizures and other might suspect they are crazy or dangerous.
Other than Paul, who can say what Jesus told him or what if anything Jesus told him to do.
Paul spoke of homosexuality, Jesus did not. There are six references to homosexuality, but most other 'sins' are spoken of in hundreds of times. Homosexuality is condemned in term of abuse, not in cases of love and commitment.
Being a christian, or even a good person, does not mean one must believe in what Paul taught or even accept him as a prophet or authority of Jesus or what he taught.

Paul vs Apostles

Religion and Spirituality James and Paul Why the Conflict

Anglicans Online Essays Pierre Whalon Piety

Did the Apostles fight over Doctrine

http://www.essene.org/Yahowshua_or_Paul.htm

The Jesus Movements 7 BCE to 170 CE

Even the gospels have errors and contradictions. They are not in total agreement of the facts or teachings.

Why should paul be more of an authority? It is bit like talking about Mohammed flying a horse in his dream and landing in al-Aqsa or the far mosque being in Jerusalem. Mohammed turned away from Jerusalem towards Mecca. Jerusalem is not mentioned in the quran. At the time of Mohammed there was not mosque or temple on the mount.

Easter rabbit carrying a basket of rainbow colored eggs is not factual either, even though we teach our children to search for decorated eggs and eat chocolate rabbits.

Hey, Ms. "I know all about tolerance", HERE"S a tip for you about how to be tolerant: if you don't want to believe it, don't believe it. But stop telling other people THEY can't believe it because "Jesus didn't say that" or "Paul isn't a disciple" or "It was a hallucination" or whatever reason YOU have settled on for dismissing it. You know what your constant harping about how people are practicing Christianity wrong because XYZ is? It's INTOLERANT!

Knock it off, you freaking hypocritical bigot.

 

[Seawytch]

There is no comparison between incidents such as a street preacher being beaten up at at gay rights parade or graffiti painted on a church compared 1402 hate crimes against LGBT people which includes murder, gang rape, and mutilations. Now that's real intolerance. And that's not ancient history. That's 2013 FBI data.

Ahh, but the other part of that data says that roughly equal amounts of hate crimes take place against those of faith, or roughly 1,030 of 5,922 hate crimes were of a religious nature (17.4%).

Don't lecture me on intolerance.

Oh, nice try...but take a look at the actual breakdown...

Of the 1,340 victims of an anti-religious hate crime:​

• 62.4 percent were victims of an offender’s anti-Jewish bias.
• 11.6 percent were victims of an anti-Islamic bias.
• 7.5 percent were victims of a bias against groups of individuals of varying religions (anti-multiple religions, group).
• 6.4 percent were victims of an anti-Catholic bias.
• 2.6 percent were victims of an anti-Protestant bias.
• 0.9 percent were victims of an anti-Atheist/Agnostic bias.
• 8.6 percent were victims of a bias against other religions (anti-other religion).

Deflection.

I think you need to look up what deflection means. Responding directly to a claim made with facts that don't support that claim is not a deflection.

I know what "deflection" means. It means responding with something that has nothing to do with the topic in order to change the subject.

Which is what you did.

I responded directly to a claim made by the OP. I guess he was deflecting from his own thread? Sure, okay.

 

[boilermaker55]

It seems you quite don't understand the argument. Christianity is not hated by all, it is trying to make everyone else bow to the beliefs of Christianity.Go to your place of worship and live your life according to your belief. Don't make the rest of the world try to live according to your way of thinking.

I'm a huge fan of George Takei, and I follow him on Facebook, Takei makes no bones about the fact that he's flaming gay and has a husband/partner named Brad. Hikaru Sulu was and is still one of my favorite characters in the original Star Trek (aside from Spock, Kirk and Chekov). But sometimes he can be quite provocative and downright hostile to people who express dissenting views of homosexuality (namely Memories Pizza), and as a result, I must sometimes roll my eyes and scroll past some of his inflammatory discussion topics (most of the time he is absolutely brilliant with puns and therefore a constant source of hilarity), but one of his topics tonight in particular compelled me to write this thread, of which can be seen here.

It's funny though, there is this far reaching cry in America for religious tolerance of homosexuality, or otherwise face inevitable demise for their intransigence. I hear how the religious (mainly the Christian religion) should have to change their values and precepts in order to be more inclusive to homosexuals, yet what I see in today's far left social liberal are words of hate and bigotry towards Christians and people of faith. In other words, the same hatred, intolerance, and bigotry that those same people claim come from those of faith.

One wonders, how does it feel for them to become the very thing they're fighting against? Doesn't tolerance work both ways? It stands to reason that if you want tolerance, you must give it in same while taking care not to be what you condemn; as Friedrich Nietzsche put it, "fight not with monsters, lest you become a monster, for if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."

If you fight so much and so hard, and with too much zealousness against a perceived evil (in this case, intolerance and bigotry), you risk becoming the same evil you were fighting against in the first place (intolerant and bigoted). This is what the LGBT activists and hordes of pro gay rights liberals have done and are doing. Preaching against intolerance and bigotry whilst being intolerant and bigoted.

Am I saying there aren't bigots? Not at all, there are. There are bigots all over the place! Am I saying that all gay people are this way? Heck no. In fact, I've seen a few examples of gay people standing up for people of faith. Am I am saying that all pro gay rights liberals are this way? Well, I'd be lying if I said no.

But this is ludicrous. The only target of this outrage in America thus far is Christianity. Not one Muslim has been sued or called out by the LGBT community for discriminating or contending that homosexuality is a sin against Allah. Nope. Just Christianity. As far as I can tell, and from what I've read, Muslims treat homosexuals a hundred times, no, a million times more harshly than any Christian today would. Christians think homosexuality is a sin that can be forgiven by God. Muslims think homosexuality is unforgivable, and is a sin punishable by death. But why just Christianity?

I also note the lack of concern some self proclaimed gay rights activists hold for homosexual people in the Middle East. When other gay people around the world are subject to the same, if not worse treatment that they condemn Christians for committing against gays in America, the silence is quite damning. To fight for gay rights in my mind, is to fight for the rights of gay individuals everywhere on Earth, not just here in America. Those who do only focus on gays here in America should realize their advocacy rings hollow. The focus is myopic.

Christianity is often condemned for its behavior during The Crusades, for forcing the conversion of unwitting Muslims and rightly so, though we have grown out of exercising such forms of barbarity; but now, I see a crusade of a different sort. And it's being waged by the extreme fringe of the LGBT crowd this time around. "Make your religion accept us, or be damned!" Their vanguard, consisting of the far left and left wage the war of identity against the opposition, hurling words like "intolerant" and "bigoted" like fire and pitch across the sociopolitical battlefield, landing squarely where it doesn't belong.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Why can't you legally refuse to pay your taxes for religious reasons, such as it being against your conscience to finance war?

Anyone?

Easy. Because the payment of taxes is enforceable at the barrel of a gun.

Think you own your home? Stop paying taxes on it, then seek to defend it when the taxman arrives to claim it.

You will see who owns your home.

8DX

 

[TemplarKormac]

It seems you quite don't understand the argument. Christianity is not hated by all, it is trying to make everyone else bow to the beliefs of Christianity.

And since when have I forced you to bow down to the beliefs of Christianity? Do I look like a Muslim to you? But right now, I feel like I, and members of my faith are being unduly attacked for standing up for our religious beliefs.

This time, yes, this town is big enough for the both of us.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I responded directly to a claim made by the OP. I guess he was deflecting from his own thread? Sure, okay.

I have you on ignore Seawytch. Mainly because I don't consider talking points as rational arguments. Make one, and I'll gladly address you.

 

[Andylusion]

How is my saying, "Yes, your relationship is just like my marriage" essential for them to get married? How is having a specific baker bake their wedding cake required for them to get married?

No one's "not allowing" it. We just aren't agreeing with it. Doesn't stop them from having a marriage, if that's what they think it is, any more than my thinking the next-door neighbor's marriage is a sham because he's fucking three or four women a week on the side (my actual neighbor doesn't, but if he did . . .)

But here's the thing. Your neighbor who fucks three or four other women STILL gets the legal recognition of his marriage. His wife still gets the legal protections that the other four women don't get. He has a heart attack while boning Mistress #3, the wife still gets all his property and custody of the kids.

Gays should get the same protections.

We trumpet, long and loud, about all the legal protections allowed to straight couples, and denied to gays. But, the reality is, that if gays were really serious about all those supposed protections, they would go see a lawyer, have a contract set up, and move on. That caterwauling is nothing more than subterfuge.

The government is consistent - if you are not a man and a woman, and you aren't married, then there are some benefits you will not get. Single couples, living together, got no more protection than a gay couple living together.

Don't like it? Fix the law. But, just like you don't want Christians to invoke their values on you, you should not be able to invoke YOUR values on them.

Ding! Ding! Ding!

Someone gets it!

Well boys, we are fixing the law. So sad for you two.

I will not follow any law that requires me to violate my faith. Guess you'll be paying taxes for my room and board?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

How is my saying, "Yes, your relationship is just like my marriage" essential for them to get married? How is having a specific baker bake their wedding cake required for them to get married?

No one's "not allowing" it. We just aren't agreeing with it. Doesn't stop them from having a marriage, if that's what they think it is, any more than my thinking the next-door neighbor's marriage is a sham because he's fucking three or four women a week on the side (my actual neighbor doesn't, but if he did . . .)

But here's the thing. Your neighbor who fucks three or four other women STILL gets the legal recognition of his marriage. His wife still gets the legal protections that the other four women don't get. He has a heart attack while boning Mistress #3, the wife still gets all his property and custody of the kids.

Gays should get the same protections.

We trumpet, long and loud, about all the legal protections allowed to straight couples, and denied to gays. But, the reality is, that if gays were really serious about all those supposed protections, they would go see a lawyer, have a contract set up, and move on. That caterwauling is nothing more than subterfuge.

The government is consistent - if you are not a man and a woman, and you aren't married, then there are some benefits you will not get. Single couples, living together, got no more protection than a gay couple living together.

Don't like it? Fix the law. But, just like you don't want Christians to invoke their values on you, you should not be able to invoke YOUR values on them.

Ding! Ding! Ding!

Someone gets it!

Well boys, we are fixing the law. So sad for you two.

I will not follow any law that requires me to violate my faith. Guess you'll be paying taxes for my room and board?

Works for me. Jail is a good place for people who refuse to obey the law.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Jail is a good place for people who refuse to obey the law.

Reminds me of totalitarianism.

 

[Andylusion]

The debate of human rights for gays is not about sexual abuse or rape, it is about two people of the same sex falling in love and sharing their lives.
It is not about sin, but about people at fall in love.
Why is this so hateful to others? What are they so afraid of? They don't have a plague that is contagious. They are not proselytizing a religion. They are not forcing others to join in their bedroom activities. They just want not to be condemned or abuse because of who they are genetically attracted to.

That's what you say it is.

The Bible says homosexuality is a sin. It's not about hate. I hate anyone. Hillary Clinton comes the closest with a standing "absolute distrust and dislike".

It's not about hate.

Sin.... is sin. We as Christians are to avoid being involved in sin. We can't be involved in a same sex marriage. Period. Doesn't mean I hate you.

If I was Jewish, I can't eat pork. Does that mean I hate pig farmers? People who eat bacon? No. I just can't be involved in that. It's part of my faith.

If I am a Muslim, I can't drink alcohol. Does that mean I hate the brewers, or the bar owners? No. I just can't partake in that.

I'm a Christian. I can't be involved in SSM. It's sin to me. Does that mean I 'hate' the people who are gay? No. I just can't supply a SSM wedding with cakes, or photo-shoots, or catering. It's part of my faith.

It's that simple.

As a jew you should not eat pork but their are exception to kashrut laws when there are no alternatives. It does not require you to starve or harm your heath till you can obtain kosher food. Even the orthodox understand that. It is the same for religious fasting for females who are pregnant or nursing, or for those in poor health or those in services like police, fire dept. or doctors. It is the same for working on the sabbath. There are reasonable exception.

If you are a muslim you are still permitted to take medicine, knowing or unknowing it contains a narcotic or alcohol. There are live saving and required meds that alter perception and behavior. We give allergy meds to our children and antibiotics that might not be 'kosher or halal' because of meal times or the need to take with meals. Not everything 'written' is absolute. If those who study the talmud and hadiths know the laws are adaptable to different circumstances and not fixed.

Life is not that simple nor are the religious laws, or civil laws.

It might have been a life time ago, but I am well read in most religious text. I can't always quote by chapter and verse but that does make me ignorant.

There is a reason we read the law, civil or religious, by the spirit and not the letter on occasion. Why even among religious lawyers and courts there is dissent on many issues. Why people have to use their best judgement, in life and in the law.

And yet when the King demanded shadrach meshach and abednego to bow down to the golden statue, did they cite exceptions? Did they rationalize and say "well people have to use their best judgement, in life and the law"?

Or did they just say "no" even under penalty of death?

Are there exceptions to certain laws? Yes of course.

But are there absolutes? Yes.

Tell me, the prohibition on adultery... is that absolute or is there an exception?

Yeah, I get it. If you are Jew, on a deserted island with no food, and surrounded by a herd of pigs... do you eat and live, or abstain and starve? Yeah, you eat the pigs. I get it.

Haven't seen many deaths over lack of photography at rump ranger weddings. So what's your point? Because there are exceptions to certain rules, we can just do whatever we feel like?

There are Christians who have that belief system. I'm not one of them.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Jail is a good place for people who refuse to obey the law.

Reminds me of totalitarianism.

Well, it isn't. It's called law and order.

 

[Andylusion]

But here's the thing. Your neighbor who fucks three or four other women STILL gets the legal recognition of his marriage. His wife still gets the legal protections that the other four women don't get. He has a heart attack while boning Mistress #3, the wife still gets all his property and custody of the kids.

Gays should get the same protections.

We trumpet, long and loud, about all the legal protections allowed to straight couples, and denied to gays. But, the reality is, that if gays were really serious about all those supposed protections, they would go see a lawyer, have a contract set up, and move on. That caterwauling is nothing more than subterfuge.

The government is consistent - if you are not a man and a woman, and you aren't married, then there are some benefits you will not get. Single couples, living together, got no more protection than a gay couple living together.

Don't like it? Fix the law. But, just like you don't want Christians to invoke their values on you, you should not be able to invoke YOUR values on them.

Ding! Ding! Ding!

Someone gets it!

Well boys, we are fixing the law. So sad for you two.

I will not follow any law that requires me to violate my faith. Guess you'll be paying taxes for my room and board?

Works for me. Jail is a good place for people who refuse to obey the law.

So be it.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

We trumpet, long and loud, about all the legal protections allowed to straight couples, and denied to gays. But, the reality is, that if gays were really serious about all those supposed protections, they would go see a lawyer, have a contract set up, and move on. That caterwauling is nothing more than subterfuge.

The government is consistent - if you are not a man and a woman, and you aren't married, then there are some benefits you will not get. Single couples, living together, got no more protection than a gay couple living together.

Don't like it? Fix the law. But, just like you don't want Christians to invoke their values on you, you should not be able to invoke YOUR values on them.

Ding! Ding! Ding!

Someone gets it!

Well boys, we are fixing the law. So sad for you two.

I will not follow any law that requires me to violate my faith. Guess you'll be paying taxes for my room and board?

Works for me. Jail is a good place for people who refuse to obey the law.

So be it.

Romans 13:1-7 doesn't apply to you it seems...

 

[Andylusion]

Jail is a good place for people who refuse to obey the law.

Reminds me of totalitarianism.

Well, it isn't. It's called law and order.

Isn't it funny how things are portrayed changes magically depending on the political ideology?

I could have sworn this same guy 'paintmyhouse', was saying that police shooting people who are breaking the law, deadbeats who don't pay child support, and have a warrant for their arrest, fighting with a police officer, knocking off quick-marts..... that's police brutality and tyranny.

But a Christian who simply wants to follow his faith, tossing an entire religious group into prison..... For..... not baking a cake... or not selling a pizza.... Now that!! That... is law and order. Even more ironic is that if you go over to any of the other threads, business owners are exploiters, and taking advantage by profiting off the public.

So now the left is throwing business owners in jail for.... not exploited and profiting off the public.

It's just fascinating how the left flip flop all over the place more than a fish on the beach, in order to justify whatever argument they happen to be in at the moment.

 

[Mac1958]

"Law and order" isn't a high priority for some when it comes to illegal aliens, of course.

.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Jail is a good place for people who refuse to obey the law.

Reminds me of totalitarianism.

Well, it isn't. It's called law and order.

Isn't it funny how things are portrayed changes magically depending on the political ideology?

I could have sworn this same guy 'paintmyhouse', was saying that police shooting people who are breaking the law, deadbeats who don't pay child support, and have a warrant for their arrest, fighting with a police officer, knocking off quick-marts..... that's police brutality and tyranny.

But a Christian who simply wants to follow his faith, tossing an entire religious group into prison..... For..... not baking a cake... or not selling a pizza.... Now that!! That... is law and order. Even more ironic is that if you go over to any of the other threads, business owners are exploiters, and taking advantage by profiting off the public.

So now the left is throwing business owners in jail for.... not exploited and profiting off the public.

It's just fascinating how the left flip flop all over the place more than a fish on the beach, in order to justify whatever argument they happen to be in at the moment.

You have me confused with someone else, and I don't flip-flop, ever.