Originally posted by Bigwhammy
In you reply to lightmare you really miss the boat as many unfamiliar with Biblical doctrine do.

I'm a Theologian. I've got four different versions of the bible on my bookshelf, and the Mormon one too. I like to collect and peruse.

The Bible is clear that all deserve hell. For all have fallen short of Gods standard. So in regard to personal righteousness we are no better off than anyone else. It is only by the substitution of Jesus Christ that we are worthy. We have no right to boast in personal righteousness but that of Christ.

I am glad that you agree; this version of Christianity is intolerant of everyone for believing we all deserve hell and for choosing to believe that humanity inherantly deserves hell.

Eph. 2:8-9 "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast."

Indeed, it is not by the works of any man that all are saved, it is by the grace of God that all are forgiven and welcomed.

So your straw man concept of what Christianity is - is what makes you intolerant.

I don't know about any of the rest of you EX-tians, but I for one believe every human being who has ever lived is in the presence of the Almighty living, Dead, or in between.

Love is boundless and without limits, and there is no Mortal Ken of the absoluteness of God's Love, without walls.

Hi there.

I'd really appreciate if we could all get back to the discussion of the thread topic Radical Homosexual Terrorism and stop with any commentary on other members.

Thanks.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
which was really dumb of mel considering I was accused of being a hypocrite for defending the one who decides who goes to hell

And by doing so you the way you do, you force yourself into such a position.

What a conundrum for you. Perhaps it's better to see such events as protesting, rather than terrorism.

Person(s) go into a place of worship and actively protest at something that offends them - an offence sourced from ideology and/or religious belief which results in an action to alter perceptions and behaviour.

Wow. Thinking straight really is that easy.

I must say, though, your statement is rather interesting. Doing what is deemed wrong by your religious figurehead to defend your religious figurehead. I guess that supposedly leads to one wrong making a right. I wonder how far that could be pushed...

[edit on 18-11-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin


And by doing so you the way you do, you force yourself into such a position.

What a conundrum for you. Perhaps it's better to see such events as protesting, rather than terrorism.

Actually no conumdrum at all as Jesus actions do not compare at all to the terrorism in question.

Person(s) go into a place of worship and actively protest at something that offends them - an offence sourced from ideology and/or religious belief which results in an action to alter perceptions and behaviour.

Jesus isn't just a "person" he has all the authority of heaven and earth, he defines righteousness - he is without sin - his actions can not possibly be a crime.

Wow. Thinking straight really is that easy.

You should try it some time... start with Proverbs 1:7

I must say, though, your statement is rather interesting. Doing what is deemed wrong by your religious figurehead to defend your religious figurehead. I guess that supposedly leads to one wrong making a right. I wonder how far that could be pushed...

I did nothing wrong because there is no hypocrisy - as he did nothing wrong. Obviously you are a very confused person...

Romans 1:22 "Thinking they were wise...."

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Actually no conumdrum at all as Jesus actions do not compare at all to the terrorism in question.

Stating something ad nauseum is not an argument.

Jesus isn't just a "person" he has all the authority of heaven and earth, he defines righteousness - he is without sin - his actions can not possibly be a crime.

For the purposes of rational, logical thinking in a discussion, Jesus is defined as a human being and a person and nothing else.

The person you are debating with is not required to share your beliefs in order to converse with you. Your additional definitions of Jesus are irrelevant to the purposes of the discussion to such an extent as to be considered purposefully blind and misleading.

You should try it some time... start with Proverbs 1:7

You need to read "Practical Logic" by Socco and Barry far more than Mel needs to read Proverbs.

I did nothing wrong because there is no hypocrisy - as he did nothing wrong. Obviously you are a very confused person...

Romans 1:22 "Thinking they were wise...."

Again, stating something in a repetitive manner is no argument at all. Mel sufficiently demonstrated the similarities of the two situations, and as such, the defense of your position using such tactics only validates the prior usage of "YOU TOO".

Now that I have your attention....

Please return to the topic at hand, Radical Homosexual Terrorism, and refrain from discussing other members.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Nor am I required to deny my beliefs in order to converse with them. We will have to agree to disagree...

Actually, to have a logical debate, you are REQUIRED to leave your beliefs at the door. Otherwise, you have no right to criticize someone's usage of logic.

I do not accept his equating the two events nor would any Christian and I dare say many non Christians would never equate Jesus motivations with those of militant homosexuals - it is high order absurdity.

This statement renders your debate over Mel's logic superfluous and surfeit. Your belief does not matter whereas it concerns Logical usage and comparison, whether you like it or not. That is anti-logic.

If that is what you cause reasonable discourse - you can keep it.

I don't define reasonable discourse. The mathematical rules of logic do.

This post will be a general reply to all who responded to my previous post. I'm feeling too lazy to do all the quoting and cut and paste work.

I try not to consider myself a fundmentalist for many reasons. One of which is because I really do try to keep an open mind on many issues where most other Christians do not. I will also say that I really hate believing the way that I do. I desperately want to believe in the idea that its all good, nobody is going to hell and we will all live happily ever after in the hereafter. My quest for knowledge and truth, however, has led me in the opposite direction. I may not like the picture that has formed as I've connected the dots, but I accept it. I speak it without shame or apology. And I live by it. That is all I can do.

As a Christian, if I disapprove of an action or lifestyle because of my beliefs, that does NOT mean that I "just barely tolerate" people who do the actions or lifestyles in question. As I said before, I know people who do all sorts of things that my Bible disapproves of. Some of them are my CLOSEST friends and loved ones. I don't "just barely tolerate" them. I love them. I'm not sure how many different ways I have to say it to make it more clear.

Some of you seem to be implying that Christians would be more acceptable if we would AFFIRM your lifestyles rather than just tolerate them. It is not going to happen though. We will ACCEPT you. We will LOVE you. And we will TOLERATE lifestyles that are in opposition to our beliefs. But we will NOT affirm or condone actions or lifestyles that are contradictory to our beliefs.



[edit on 11/18/2008 by Lightmare]

[edit on 11/18/2008 by Lightmare]

I've always enjoyed a good discussion regarding the 'tolerance debate.' To me tolerance is not necessarily liking or approving of another's actions or beliefs but instead accepting that person's right to them. Once one forces someone to not only 'put up with' but to actually approve of or endorse whatever it is they stand for, they are in turn being intolerant of the other person's right to disagree with them. In that sense, they become the thought police.

In the case of the thread's story, it gets tricky because the people are fighting for tolerance of their lifestyles but are displaying an intolerant attitude of those who disagree. But this extends even past that. The perpetrators surpassed the tolerance issue and ventured into the realm of criminal.

Originally posted by Lightmare
Some of you seem to be implying that Christians would be more acceptable if we would AFFIRM your lifestyles rather than just tolerate them. It is not going to happen though. We will ACCEPT you. We will LOVE you. And we will TOLERATE lifestyles that are in opposition to our beliefs. But we will NOT affirm or condone actions or lifestyles that are contradictory to our beliefs.
[edit on 11/18/2008 by Lightmare]

In order for you to be tolerant, you are not required to affirm another person's life. However, believing they are condemned is an intolerant view which you choose when you ascribe to your faith.

Look, I realize in your mind that this is truth, that the reality is that everyone deserves hell. But this is a view, this is a belief. Whether you FEEL it to be true or not, it is not demonstrably true and thus the actual reality of it is ambiguous in a rational sense.

No matter how true you believe it to be, if it isn't demonstrable, it doesn't stand as true. As such, since religion is a belief structure, and believing in God requires believing the truth that all of us are sinners and deserve hell, this is a belief that you choose to invest your emotions into.

I'm all about the live and let live mentality... but whereas the topic is concerned, these actions are RE-actions in response to long standing feelings of hatred directed at Homosexuals. Are they correct? I see them as morally gray, not wrong or right.

Christians often voice towards Homosexuals and about Homosexuals that their sin displeases God, and this OPINION (Remember, biblical truth on the matter isn't demonstrable) creates the seeds of guilt, mistrust, and anger towards the prosylatizing entity.

It is this vocal and open admittance that Homosexuals are going to hell, that God hates the way they live their lives and can't stand to be around them that Angers and Hurts the gay people.

And in all honesty, it is both the Christans fault AND the Gay people's fault for seeking approval from Christians.

Watch out for tribbles though. They cause trouble!

Not the gay ones... they don't breed!