It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by ihavenoaccount
reply to post by Wonders
Yes, I'm certainly still baffled.
One, because your "conditions for love" argument is just arguing semantics. When people talk of unconditional love, the supposition is that Person A would never permanently and absolutely deny Person B. I was under the impression that "agape" was an ideal trait in Christians, but whatever.
As for your position on equality, well... I guess it was too broad from the start. Regardless, surely there are certain types of equality. Surely you stand for legal equality? Formal equality? Equal civil liberties and basic human rights for all? Come on, you're on ATS mate!
If people aren't equal in ability, socio-economic class, ambition, etc., does that make one superior to the other? Is one more worthy of life than the other?
I asked the questions of sheer curiosity and was genuine. Snark and condescension are unbecoming IMO, so don't take this post with the pitcher of salt you did with the other one.
As such, I'll ask one more question. If I have no real potential for change (why capital letters btw ), then aren't you condemning me on God's behalf? What kind of Christian are you? Not only is it rude to assume people's futures like that, it's darn right troubling since I know where you think I'm headed.
P.S. I don't think my beliefs are superior to yours. They just make more sense on a personal level. So, equality under the law, yes?
Originally posted by ihavenoaccount
reply to post by Wonders
Need someone to look down on? Don't play the martyr. What is there for me to look down on? I'm not your garden-variety Internet atheist.
Believe it or not, I'm genuinely interested in your thoughts. You don't believe in religious tolerance, and this thread is about tolerating the intolerant.
Sorry if you were offended by my calling you a Christian, but you do seem to accept Jesus as your saviour. Christians are followers of Christ, right?
In any case, you're right. It's likely we'll never agree on anything, especially with your witty little dictionary quote at the end. But see, I recognise your right to have the views you do, and say the things you say (even if it is abhorrent) without legal repercussions.
That's what I, and several others would consider tolerance. What do you have against that, to be more on topic?
Originally posted by ihavenoaccount
reply to post by Wonders
Well, that certainly would help, except for the fact that it doesn't. The definition of tolerance in the text you provided is more akin to acceptance. It's a typical straw tactic against "political correctness" (e.g. not being a jerk when you say something), not employed by you but the article. If we define tolerance as we have in my previous post (i.e. acknowledging freedom of choice and speech), then what is your problem with it?