2
   

Liberal Hypocrisy about Intelligent Design

 
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2005 05:13 pm
J_B,

I am not judging anyone. I am sticking to what I believe is right or wrong. Just because I think something someone does is wrong, that does not make me not like them, hate them, or be in judgment of them.

J_B, I completely understand what you are saying. But, my position on this is just as steadfast as yours is. If the law passes and same sex marriage is made legal, fine. But, I will not be one that helped it to pass. That is my right. That is your right.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2005 05:31 pm
Then I repeat my question, if forgive = condone = 'To overlook, forgive, or disregard (an offense) without protest or censure.', how do you reconcile 'forgive them their trespasses' with your action to deny of civil liberties to others?
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2005 05:55 pm
J_B,

I rephrased it, remember?
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2005 11:52 pm
Momma Angel wrote:
J_B,

I am not judging anyone. I am sticking to what I believe is right or wrong. Just because I think something someone does is wrong, that does not make me not like them, hate them, or be in judgment of them.


Not judging, just punishing without judgement then?

Momma Angel wrote:
J_B, I completely understand what you are saying. But, my position on this is just as steadfast as yours is. If the law passes and same sex marriage is made legal, fine. But, I will not be one that helped it to pass. That is my right. That is your right.

Yes, we have heard that I will do what I want nyah nyah before, but who are you trying to scam with that "If the law passes" nonsense? The laws being proposed all across the country are laws to prevent or block same sex marriage/civil unions. Even a constitutional ammendment has been proposed to prevent individual states from setting their own marriage laws. It is not your RIGHT to act on your belief that is in question. What is being criticized is your hypocrisy.

I think it worth noting that to their credit, none of the other Christians that normally side with you on many other issues have joined you here.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Dec, 2005 12:23 am
mesquite wrote:
Momma Angel wrote:
J_B,

I am not judging anyone. I am sticking to what I believe is right or wrong. Just because I think something someone does is wrong, that does not make me not like them, hate them, or be in judgment of them.


Not judging, just punishing without judgement then?

My one vote is punishing whom? You act like my one vote is going to make all the difference in this thing. We are just having a discussion about an issue. I am not out on the streets holding up signs or anything. I am talking about my ONE vote.

Momma Angel wrote:
J_B, I completely understand what you are saying. But, my position on this is just as steadfast as yours is. If the law passes and same sex marriage is made legal, fine. But, I will not be one that helped it to pass. That is my right. That is your right.

Yes, we have heard that I will do what I want nyah nyah before, but who are you trying to scam with that "If the law passes" nonsense? The laws being proposed all across the country are laws to prevent or block same sex marriage/civil unions. Even a constitutional ammendment has been proposed to prevent individual states from setting their own marriage laws. It is not your RIGHT to act on your belief that is in question. What is being criticized is your hypocrisy.

So, you don't base your vote on what you believe? If you think a certain bill is not good, you vote for it because somebody else might want it? I vote on what I think is the right thing to do. PERIOD.

I think it worth noting that to their credit, none of the other Christians that normally side with you on many other issues have joined you here.

Is that supposed to upset me? Is that supposed to make me feel bad? It doesn't. I respect the way the other Christians feel and believe, Mesquite. I am sure that they agree with some things I do and don't agree with other things. That is just the way the world is. It doesn't make it anymore right or wrong how many agree with you, does it? Mr. Setanta has posted several times a quote about that. I would submit that quote could be used both ways.

Don't you understand anything about me yet? I don't dwell on the differences in others. I try to see the similarities. We all have as many similarities as we do differences. I have been more than willing to agree to disagree on this issue many times. Why can't you just agree to disagree? I could possibly understand your lack of tolerance for me on this issue if I was out there actually carrying signs, drumming up other votes, etc., but I am not. The furthest I have gone with this topic is on this forum and in speaking with my two friends I told you about. They are really having a hard time also understanding why some can't just understand that I just believe and feel differently than others. Afterall, this DOES concern them directly. They have no problem with me on this. Why do you?
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Dec, 2005 12:53 am
If your one vote is so insignificant, why cast it?

One more time for this thought also. When I cast my vote I consider it's impact on others. Example; I do not vote for tax cuts that put money in my pocket and mortgage the future of our children. I will support your freedom to practice your religion even though I feel it is a net negative for society.

You cannot seem to separate what is right for you from what is right for others. Meddling attitudes such as yours and others on the fringe IMO are going to cause a huge backlash.

No, I do not expect that because you are alone on this issue, to upset you, but I would think that the opinions of those whom you respect would at least cause you to explore you position. You seem to be so hardened in your stance that I cannot see how you could possibly deny homophobia.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Dec, 2005 01:02 am
mesquite wrote:
If your one vote is so insignificant, why cast it?

One more time for this thought also. When I cast my vote I consider it's impact on others. Example; I do not vote for tax cuts that put money in my pocket and mortgage the future of our children. I will support your freedom to practice your religion even though I feel it is a net negative for society.

You cannot seem to separate what is right for you from what is right for others. Meddling attitudes such as yours and others on the fringe IMO are going to cause a huge backlash.

No, I do not expect that because you are alone on this issue, to upset you, but I would think that the opinions of those whom you respect would at least cause you to explore you position. You seem to be so hardened in your stance that I cannot see how you could possibly deny homophobia.


Mesquite,

Like I said, just agree to disagree, ok?

If you want to call me homophobic because I believe something is wrong then fine, call me homophobic. It's not going to change my stance anymore than I am going to change yours.

I cast my one vote because it is my right to do so. It is my right to cast that vote in any manner in which I so wish to do. It is my right to base on that vote on what I want to base it on. It is my right just as it is your right.

I am hardened on the stance of what is right and what is wrong. It would be wrong for me to vote for this issue. That is the plain and simple truth of it. You either accept it or you don't. I think we have said quite enough about it though, don't you?
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Dec, 2005 07:41 am
Momma Angel, I can see that you don't understand where I am coming from, so from my end I am going to let it drop.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Dec, 2005 09:05 am
Momma Angel wrote:
J_B,

On the basis of your definitions, yes, I also concede. So, let me rephrase it, ok? If I vote for something that I think is wrong, then I put forth the false assumption that I approve of it. And, I won't do it. Very Happy


With all due respect, MA. Your rephasing of your position keeps you in conflict of Matthew 6:14.

I've got to run and won't be around much today, but I skimmed over the past couple pages and wanted to quickly comment that EVERY vote matters. Every individual who casts a vote against equality is hurting those who do not get to live their lives with equal protection under the law. I too do not desire this lifestyle, but I have no business attempting to deny it to those who do.... live and let live, MA>
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Dec, 2005 09:19 am
J_B,

Okay, let's live and let live. I will live and let live by allowing you the respect of doing what you think is right and you can live and let live by allowing me the same respect?

We can just agree to disagree? You know, live and let live?
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Dec, 2005 11:33 am
As for me I repect your RIGHT to do what you do, but in no way can I respect WHAT you do. That IMO is a major difference between our positions.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Dec, 2005 12:00 pm
That's ok. I respect your right also. :wink:
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Dec, 2005 04:13 pm
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?endeca=1&cds2Pid=86&isbn=0060738170
(Nothing new here if you're familiar with the background of the early church's wanderlust. No wonder the good news turned into doom and gloom along the corridors of religious history.)

ABOUT THE BOOK
Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why


FROM OUR EDITORS
Dr. Bart Ehrman, the author of Lost Christianities and Lost Scriptures, has devoted his scholarly life to the recovery and interpretation of ancient biblical texts. He is unapologetic about his intense commitment: In the absence of original manuscripts of the books of the New Testament, he notes, questions of transmission and text become paramount. Misquoting Jesus offers a revelatory view of the Gospels and Paul's Epistles, arguing that scribes and editors altered almost all extant manuscripts. Part memoir, part biblical history, part textual criticism, Misquoting Jesus challenges us to look anew at texts that have shaped our culture.

FROM THE PUBLISHER
When world-class biblical scholar Bart Ehrman first began to study the texts of the Bible in their original languages he was startled to discover the multitude of mistakes and intentional alterations that had been made by earlier translators. In Misquoting Jesus, Ehrman tells the story behind the mistakes and changes that ancient scribes made to the New Testament and shows the great impact they had upon the Bible we use today. He frames his account with personal reflections on how his study of the Greek manuscripts made him abandon his once ultraconservative views of the Bible.

Since the advent of the printing press and the accurate reproduction of texts, most people have assumed that when they read the New Testament they are reading an exact copy of Jesus's words or Saint Paul's writings. And yet, for almost fifteen hundred years these manuscripts were hand copied by scribes who were deeply influenced by the cultural, theological, and political disputes of their day. Both mistakes and intentional changes abound in the surviving manuscripts, making the original words difficult to reconstruct. For the first time, Ehrman reveals where and why these changes were made and how scholars go about reconstructing the original words of the New Testament as closely as possible.

Ehrman makes the provocative case that many of our cherished biblical stories and widely held beliefs concerning the divinity of Jesus, the Trinity, and the divine origins of the Bible itself stem from both intentional and accidental alterations by scribes -- alterations that dramatically affected all subsequent versions of the Bible.

FROM THE CRITICS
Library Journal
"The Bible"-its use in the singular can gloss over the fact that we do not have access to the original text, but only to manuscripts of a relatively late provenance produced at different times and places and containing among them thousands of variant wordings. An accomplished scholar of early Christianity, Ehrman (religious studies, Univ. of North Carolina, Chapel Hill) ventures out of the ivory tower in this accessible lay introduction to New Testament textual criticism. He sketches the development of New Testament literature, the gradual accumulation of errors therein through the accidental or intentional revisions of copyists, and attempts (beginning with Erasmus in the 16th century) to reconstruct the original text. Since mainstream study editions of the Bible have long drawn attention to the existence of alternate readings, the reasonably well-informed reader will not find much revolutionary analysis here. But Ehrman convincingly argues that even some generally received passages are late additions, which is particularly interesting in the case of those verses with import for doctrinal issues such as women's ordination or the Atonement. Recommended for all public libraries.-Charles Seymour, Mabee Learning Resources Ctr., Wayland Baptist Univ., Plainview, TX Copyright 2005 Reed Business Information.

Product Details:
ISBN: 0060738170
Format: Hardcover, 242pp
Pub. Date: November 2005
Publisher: HarperCollins Publishers
Barnes & Noble Sales Rank: 114
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Dec, 2005 04:32 pm
Mr. Cicerone Imposter,

Who said the good news turned to doom and gloom Question Man! Somebody forgot to tell me. :wink: The good news of Jesus has now gone to doom and gloom? Who started that silly rumor anyway?http://web4.ehost-services.com/el2ton1/boxing.gif
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Dec, 2005 09:28 pm
The way I see it the Fundies are trying to have their 'Sharia Law' mandated. My argument was that rejection of the Sharia Law doesn't preclude Muslims from following it. Those Muslims who are not religious are not compelled to follow it if the Sharia Law is enacted. They have the freedom. But by making it a law all Muslims are forced to Live Sharia Law. So we should reject the Fundy Christians' 'Sharia Law' as rejection does not preclude Christians from following it. By having the Christian Law mandated all Christians who are not religious would be forced to follow the Fundy Christian Law.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Dec, 2005 09:36 pm
talk72000 wrote:
The way I see it the Fundies are trying to have their 'Sharia Law' mandated. My argument was that rejection of the Sharia Law doesn't preclude Muslims from following it. Those Muslims who are not religious are not compelled to follow it if the Sharia Law is enacted. They have the freedom. But by making it a law all Muslims are forced to Live Sharia Law. So we should reject the Fundy Christians' 'Sharia Law' as rejection does not preclude Christians from following it. By having the Christian Law mandated all Christians who are not religious would be forced to follow the Fundy Christian Law.

I looked up Sharia Law. It doesn't appear to have anything to do with Christianity. It appears to pertain to Muslim law.

Could you explain it a bit more talk72000? I am not sure I am following you on this.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Dec, 2005 10:16 pm
ci, thanks for the link. I'm currently reading Ehrman's other two books. I'll pick this one up as well.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Dec, 2005 10:20 pm
J_B, It would seem to me that anybody seriously interested in the bible would read Dr Ehrman's books. I think some people are afraid they might learn something that questions what they have believed for most of their life, and questions their religion/faith. A shut mind is difficult to penetrate.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Dec, 2005 10:41 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
J_B, It would seem to me that anybody seriously interested in the bible would read Dr Ehrman's books. I think some people are afraid they might learn something that questions what they have believed for most of their life, and questions their religion/faith. A shut mind is difficult to penetrate.

Mr. Cicerone Imposter,

Boy, is that ever a true statement you made there! :wink: Trouble is, who decides whose mind is really shut? Perhaps some just don't accept other viewpoints because they don't agree with them? :wink:

Maybe it goes against what they believe? Hmmm. What do you think, Mr. C.I.?http://web4.ehost-services.com/el2ton1/heart.gif
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Dec, 2005 12:03 am
I just thought I'd post this article. I found it kind of interesting.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2005-10-10-evolution-debate-centerpiece_x.htm
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Intelligent Design - Question by giujohn
What is Intelligent Design? - Discussion by RexRed
Do *ANY* creationists understand evolution? - Discussion by rosborne979
The Bed Bug/Parasite Plant Theory - Question by TeePee38
dna worlds - Discussion by Syamsu
DD VERSUS EVOLUTION - Discussion by Setanta
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 09/18/2019 at 03:36:20