Liberal Hypocrisy about Intelligent Design

neo, Thanks for showing your limited skill in the English language, but it was funny!

Yees I know MA brilliant is the word. I hear it often just before some jesus freak kicks me in the testicular fortitude then brings down heavily a leaden bible upon my head and shoulders. "Brilliant ineed is the word they use. I've grown used to it in my dotage.

Oh good grief......

Smile MA, you're on candid camera.

Are you depending on Paul for that? I don't see anywhere where Jesus' words show him being intolerant of homosexuals.

JB if you have the correct faith you would know what jesus wanted or didn't want without having to see it in print. Heathen you are, no doubt.

Look, I am going to say this one more time. I am not intolerant of homosexuals. I believe the act is wrong. I believe the act of lying is wrong. I believe the act of murder is wrong, as I believe a lot of other things are wrong. Just because I disagree and vote my conscience, it does not make me intolerant.

Intolerant is calling people names for being the way they are. Intolerant is beating people up for the way they believe or are. Intolerant is treating them in a harmful manner. I just disagree. And you disagree with me. So what? So, you get to call me names because of it? What gives you the right to call me names because I do not agree with you? Is this what you teach your children? If you don't agree with something about someone you call them names?

C.I., you are of Japanese descent I believe? How would you feel if someone belittled your children because of that? How would you feel if someone belittled you because of it?

Some of you seem to have no problem labeling those with spiritual beliefs. Others don't do it. I don't see too much labeling going on about what you don't believe.

And Setanta, don't even bother with that virtuous commentary, ok. I am not better than anyone else in this world.

The point is, most of you seem to think I am less of a human being because I don't believe the way you believe. I have actually been accused of crawling on the earth now!

As far as I am concerned, if you feel the best way to defend your position is to label and personally attack anyone, then you have already lost the debate.

There are those on these threads that do not agree with me or others. They seem to be able to debate their point quite well without personally attacking anyone. I have great respect for those. Those are the ones I can learn from. Those are the true teachers in this world.

thanks all enjoyed it.

particularly liked dys's bible thumping

or should that be in the passive sense?

Steve, have a cuppa and chill. I don't mean Typhoo, try something of interest like Assam Superb. Oh and why are you stalking me?

just like to stay up wind ok? Whats thaipoo?

I don't have any respect for homophobic bigots.

Interesting version difference in Acts 9:15 "But the Lord said to him, "Go, for he is an instrument whom I have chosen to bring my name before Gentiles and kings and before the people of Israel". In NRVS, Acts mentions the twelve apostles throughout as apostles and Paul as a messenger or instrument, but never quite granting him equal status.

Before I get on to contradictions, I'd like to make another point about Pauls' arrogance as shown in 1 Corinthians 4:15-16 "For though you might have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers. Indeed, in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel. I appeal to you, then, be imitators of me." It's interesting that he goes on to talk about their arrogance!!!

Contradictions include Jesus' message of the Kingdom of God vs Paul's message of self-proclamation, Jesus' treatment of women to Paul's example in 1 Corinthians 34-35 (I love that one), Jesus' message of salvation through works and deeds vs Paul's message of salvation through faith, Jesus' message of the Law not being altered in Matthew 5:17-20 and Luke 16:17 vs Galatians 2:15-16 (and no, I don't accept the Paulian interpretation that fulfill means to set it aside as the rest of the passage in Matthew clearly calls for living within the law).

No doubt

Thai poo ? ? ?


What does Siamese excrement have to do with any of this? I mean, i know that MOAN is peddling nothing but excrement, but i didn't think she was from Thailand . . .

I stopped the quote where I did because your last sentance here is the heart of the matter. "Intolerant is treating them in a harmful manner." Enacting laws that prohibit equal protection under the law of two individuals who happen to be in a same-sex relationship from the same rights as those in a heterosexual relationship is treating them in a harmful manner. Let me give you some examples where having laws prohibiting same sex marriage is harmful.

1) Bette and Sue (or Joe and Fred) are in a long-term committed relationship. They decide they want to raise a child. In most states they cannot petition to adopt as a couple, only one of the pair may be the adoptive parent. Let's say Bette (or Joe) is the adoptive parent. Sue (or Fred) love the child as if it is their own. If something were to happen to the adoptive parent there is no natural transition of legal custody to the other partner because they are not married. If the partnership breaks up Sue or Fred might not be granted parental visitation in some states.

2) In some community property states, Sue does not inherit Bette's estate regardless of how long they have been together. I am aware of one partner in a male same-sex relationship who married his sick partner's mother as a formality in order that the laws of inheritance would eventually pass their property on to the surviving partner. This kind of forced exericise is totally ridiculous.

3) In some states Bette cannot be on Sue's health insurance under a group plan. If Sue in uninsured because she is a homemaker caring for their children and becomes ill, Bette's insurance will not cover her.

I agree with you that intolerance is treating someone in a harmful manner, I disagree with you that advocating laws prohibiting same-sex marriage and equal protection of same-sex couples under the law is not harmful.

J_B,

I understand what you are saying. I cannot and will not condone what I think is wrong.

My friends, Bette and Sue, have no problem whatsoever with me on this issue. Why do you?

That's a good question, MA. Sturgis has spoken on a somewhat similar theme. I don't care if Bette and Sue get married or not. I'm not talking about your neighbors, per se. I'm talking about any Bette or any Sue. Heterosexuals couples face the same dilemas if they choose not to marry, but the point remains it is their choice. Same-sex couples are, in most states, denied the choice by people who would pass laws reflecting how they would live their own lives and demanding others not be given the legal choice to live an alternative lifestyle.

I care because when we treat other people (passing laws constitutes treatment) and their choices as abhorrant and illegal, when the choice made has absolutely no impact on how we choose to live our daily lives then we've taken on the role of judge (God, if you will). Laws upon actions that infringe on the civil liberties of others are fine, but laws against personal determination are in direct conflict of my 'live and let live' philosophy. We (you) have no right to prevent Sue and Bette being as complete a couple as they would choose. Who are you to judge or who am I? Leave judgement of one's acts between them and their god. Live your life and let them live theirs in the manner of their choosing.

J_B,

Again, I understand your feeling and your reasoning.

The Bble says that this is wrong according to God. I cannot and will not vote for something that condones what God calls a sin. That is the extent of my involvment. If it becomes a law, then it's a law. If not, then it's not. We all have the same right to vote according to what we think is right and what we think is wrong.

I happen to think I am right in this and you happen to think that you are right in this.

We just have differing views, etc.

MA,

Re: the new avatar with the flag displayed in distress posture with an angel before it. Does that represent angels attacking our constitution?

MA thinks she's an angel, and she wants to destroy our Constitution and Bill of Rights by her "beliefs."