intricatic
...a dinosaur... or something...
And in the process showing your lack of knowledge of biblical hermeneutics and exegesis. Thanks.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
And in the process showing your lack of knowledge of biblical hermeneutics and exegesis. Thanks.I also added stoning to death disobedient children.
I was making a point using the bible showing that every Christian picks and chooses what they want the bible to say. Would Christians consider stoning to death people evil? The bible supports such behaviors.
Nice job martin , too bad you didnt quote the rest of claires post which makes it imply that we would do that today yet dont because of tolerance but im guessing you got it anyway.
Atheists on a Christian website are analogous to guests in a church.
I don't know what the problem is. Christians in an atheist site would be welcome to the site, but they'd expect to be governed by the rule of the atheists. I don't know why the attitude is so different here.
Stalemate is only really an issue if the decision is framed as a choice between one policy and another. If rather decisions are all of the form 'implement this policy or not?' then if no agreement is reached, the default should be 'not.' No adjudication required.
AS a former member of an athiest site, that is untrue.
Christians are not welcomed, and will be arbitrarily given more rules governing them.
IE...if you post your opinion in a the section named 'religion' and you discuss Christian principles, you may be cut down to 4 posts per day because you are not sharing the vision of the site.
I can proove that ....it happened to me.
I still have the thread telling me I lost my privledges because my visions were not shared...and furthermore I was told there was no reason for me being there.
I do not want to hear that Christians are held equally in the secular world...because even online, if you are Christian, you are not wanted.
WILL that be the eventual case here once all the Christians get fed up and persue other places to fellowship in peace?
And new Christians won't likely come here either since it will be just another relative site employing free thinking and 'open mindedness' regarding if God exists or not.
If the name changes and this is no longer Christian, it will lose a great amount of Christian members.
I have yet to see an atheist site thrive...
In fact most lose pace and eventually sit in idle.
And in the process showing your lack of knowledge of biblical hermeneutics and exegesis. Thanks.
Intolerance is evil.
And some Christians with editing power telling other Christians what is Christian and then taking their cross away which they identify with is intolerance and dehumanizing.
Every Christian picks and chooses what the bible says to support their own position. So enforcing the popular groups picking and choosing as more valid then the other I find hypocritical, intolerant, and just the "in group" pushing further away the "out group".
All of this intolerance seems to go against what Christians say to be Christian means.
But from my godless perspective it is just us humans grouping others as "less then" in some way so we can look down or feel sorry for those in the "out group". This is one method we humans use to "feel" better about ourselves.
Oh, come on!
I am really, really tired of the hyperbole from both sides of the aisle here.
There is no atheist takeover.
There are no concentration camps.
Haul your heads back to reality-land, people. You all sound like lunatics.
In the Controversial Siggy wiki, we went round and round and came up with a total of 8 choices to be voted upon.
Quite a few times, thanks.Maybe a lack of knowledge of the particular way you pick and choose what the bible says. Which only supports my point.
By the way I have read the whole bible cover to cover, have you?
So lemme get this straight. You're intolerant of intolerant people, yet you're not intolerant against yourself for being intolerant? I'm confused.I also added stoning to death disobedient children.
I was making a point using the bible showing that every Christian picks and chooses what they want the bible to say. Would Christians consider stoning to death people evil? The bible supports such behaviors.
So lemme get this straight. You're intolerant of intolerant people, yet you're not intolerant against yourself for being intolerant? I'm confused.
First off: I love my non-Christians friends here. I will never deny them a spot next to me and I welcome the chance to fellowship with them.
I choose option 2 though because this is a Christian site---I want Christian beliefs stated here, like they have been since the day I joined. But I want fellowship with non-believers as well.
Well, he's saying intolerance is evil, yet he doesn't seem to address the fact that he's intolerant of intolerance, thus making him guilty of the very thing he's condemning.What he means is that you don't take people who burn people at the stake, and burn them at the stake.
That is the running definition of tolerance, right?
Quite a few times, thanks.
I don't have any difficulty communicating with you, are you saying language doesn't have a fixed meaning? If so, shouldn't we be reaching an impass by now, or do you just like wearing a blindfold?
What? I don't understand your strange characters appearing on my screen seeking to communicate a thought to me. Could you be more clear? Do you have to be this transparent all the time CaDan?Fixed meaning of language?
*sigh*
Doubleplusungood.
So lemme get this straight. You're intolerant of intolerant people, yet you're not intolerant against yourself for being intolerant? I'm confused.
Actually, this tolerance bandwagon is a totalitarianism of it's own sort. I'm sorry, but that entire diatribe has no meaning whatsoever; it doesn't address anything at all except for what the very idea being defended seeks to impose on people.Shamelessly stolen from Slacktivist:
About here, inevitably, someone will chime in with what they seem to think of as the trump card for the religious totalitarian perspective. Aha! they will say, so what you're saying is you're all for tolerance, except when it comes to people who are intolerant!
Well, yeah. And also, duh. Antonyms are incompatible. Opposites are opposed. That's not a particularly noteworthy observation, so I've always been baffled as to why this bit of adolescent wordplay was regarded as meaningful.
Here again, though, I think Patel's terminology is helpful. Intolerance is, necessarily, totalitarian. So when I say I favor freedom -- whether freedom of conscience or of any other sort -- then, yes, what I'm really saying is that I'm all for freedom except for when it comes to people who want to impose totalitarianism. This exception does not, as the JV sophists would have it, negate the claim that "I'm all for freedom." It simply demonstrates that, unlike them, I'm aware of what words like "free" and "tolerant" -- and their opposites -- actually mean.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?