Criticizing Bigotry is not an Attack on Faith

[veritas1]

Who are the powers that be? That's all you've been doing - attributing these beliefs to people unnamed and unidentifiable by mortal humans who cannot read your mind. If it's not "the left" you're talking about, which is who knows who, it's "powers that be" and I don't know who that is either. Then you switch them up from post to post as needed.

And your post makes no sense internally. AOC doesn't represent the "powers that be" - just the opposite. See, Amazon and NYC failed deal. Then you say AOC and those supporting her don't want Bernie, but from what I can see, her 'faction' in the Democratic party is Bernie's BASE. And, no, the establishment of the Democratic party is opposed to Bernie, in part because he's not a Democrat and the establishment is more corporate centered, and answers to the donor class, like the GOP. If there's anyone the "powers that be" will get behind, it's likely Biden, a white male, because he's been a reliable moderate or corporate Democrat his entire career.

So your "opinions" are contradicted by reality.

I'm sure I haven't imagined all the disparagement of white men nor from what quarters it has emanated. It surely hasn't been from conservatives.

 

[veritas1]

1. Mayor Pete should have just said that he disagrees with Vice President Pence on the gay issue and said nothing more.

2. I do not believe in "God," but there are many people that say they do. If they belong to a denomination that calls gay relations a sin, then it is understandable that they would oppose gay relations.

a. If one wants to label such people as "bigots," that is fine. Such people simply feel that they must obey the ideas of their denomination. And that's fine, too.

3. I personally feel that gay people should be protected from gay bashing, from police entrapment, from discrimination in employment, etc.

a. I feel, however, "marriage" should be reserved for a man and a woman. Civil unions can provide most legal privileges of a married couple.
b. I feel that Mayor Pete was wrong to kiss his husband on stage.

4. IMHO, the best country for gay people is where gay relations are legal, the police ignore gay cruising, gays are discreet, and society simply ignores its existence. I believe that many gay people would like such a society. To the best of my knowledge, there is only one country that qualifies in that respect, but I do not wish to name it.

This post is probably too rational to be here. :lol:

 

[veritas1]

It's one thing to not celebrate sin, it's altogether another support policies that discriminate against gays.

If the Bible is being used to justify bigotry, and the right definitely is doing this, then they are not following the Bible at all, the Bible says to put gays to death, it does not say "thou shalt not associate with gays" ( it just says to put them to death because the lord considers it an abomination ). Now, if you are going to make the specious argument that, well, if it tells me to put gays to death, then it's obvious, by extrapolation, I shouldn't associate with them

No, it DOES NOT tell you to put gays to death, it just says that is the punishment. Punishment is entrusted to authorities in any society.

Regular folk should 'love thy neighbor' or preach to sinners, or walk among them and get them to repent, etc., and thus there is no legit reason to conclude the Bible tells vendors not to sell stuff to gays. That's just using the Bible to hide one's bigotry.








.

There is nothing in the NT that says to do anything to gays or anyone else. Romans 12:17-21 is pretty specific on this issue. Scripture says that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. If one is loathe to celebrate his own sin, he certainly shouldn't be celebrating it in others.

 

[TrueScotsman]

The Bible, as I understand it, came to fore via the Emperor Constantine, who, at the council of nicea, decided on the need for a single book for Christians to abide by. There were numerous religious texts floating around for centuries, creating numerous christian sects. All of the gnostic gospels were decided to be heretical ( among others were which not canonized ). I believe the most important christian book is the Gospel Of Thomas, which is nothing more than 114 quotes attributed to Christ. It was excluded.

But, I'm no expert.

One thing that is clear to me, though I don't know about Christians will agree, that the Bible was not written by God. It was written mostly by men of antiquity, many of whom were priests, and stories passed down through centuries, of whom Christ asserted that sinners will reach heaven before they (the so-called pious )do ( haven't you ever felt that some pious dude you met somewhere was an A-hole hypocrite, etc., I think that is what Christ -- or whoever said it - meant by that comment.

I leave it to you to correct me on the details.

There were various points in which the "orthodox" position was defined, but I think it's clear the Pauline Proto-Orthodox movement won out over Gnostic interpretations. I think scholars are pretty clear that most of the New Testament texts are not from the attributed author, but I think they represent a pretty consistent condemnation of Homosexuality, such as the very stark one given it Romans 1. In this one he compares the exchange of one's sexuality to the darkest of exchanges, the replacement of god with idols. It goes on to say that because people have suppressed the truth of god in unrighteous that they are induced to all kinds of abominable behavior such as homosexuality and it clearly says the wrath of god is stored up for such deeds.

Christianity from the Proto-Orthodox viewpoint (Pauline and not Gnostic) is clearly only in favor of monogamous relationships, and backed up by other texts from the first century which further condemns pederasty which was common in the Roman world.

If someone has a fundamentalist view of the Bible, its generally literal interpretation and inerrancy (nothing missing or incorrect), and its supremacy in their life, then you sadly must accept this abominable conclusion concerning homosexuality. Which is my point, the text is the problem, the Gnostics are irrelevant, its the fundamentalists and their interpretation of the Bible (which is sadly correct on the issue of homosexuality) which has made life hell for the LGBTQ community.

One is welcome to take modern hermeneutical approaches to interpret the text, but I do think you are departing from what a Jewish man like Paul would have actually felt. I tried to be a "Liberal" Christian where I basically only had a few books of the Bible I felt only somewhat confident in, but the cognitive dissonance was too paralyzing. I think people should just depart from the Bible, its too problematic a text, historically and morally.

 

[AGENT J]

1. Mayor Pete should have just said that he disagrees with Vice President Pence on the gay issue and said nothing more.
2. I do not believe in "God," but there are many people that say they do. If they belong to a denomination that calls gay relations a sin, then it is understandable that they would oppose gay relations.
2a. If one wants to label such people as "bigots," that is fine. Such people simply feel that they must obey the ideas of their denomination. And that's fine, too.
3. I personally feel that gay people should be protected from gay bashing, from police entrapment, from discrimination in employment, etc.
3a. I feel, however, "marriage" should be reserved for a man and a woman.
3b.) Civil unions can provide most legal privileges of a married couple.
3c). I feel that Mayor Pete was wrong to kiss his husband on stage.
4. IMHO, the best country for gay people is where gay relations are legal, the police ignore gay cruising, gays are discreet, and society simply ignores its existence. I believe that many gay people would like such a society. To the best of my knowledge, there is only one country that qualifies in that respect, but I do not wish to name it.

1.) maybe but i totally understand pointing out the hypocrisy ad bigotry or Pence especially since they are both politicians and its very sad one is the VP.
2.) defend oppose? not agree, disagree thats fine . . if one tries to legally stop it and treat people as lessers thats bigotry
2a.) yes its fine and they will be probably labeled as bigots because obeying doesnt require making legal laws against it and violating rights of others.

thats where the HUGE difference is . . millions of Christians and other religious people are just fine with equal rights, nobody at my church fights agasint it . . .why are SOME not and trying to stop equal rights, THOSE people are the bigots.

3.) AGree has do most americans because we believe in equal rights
3a.) then 3 is factually not true because theres no logical and sound reason for this and it is discrimination. it seems you dont believe in equal rights and want to treat gays as lessers. Marriage in this regard is a legal contract, period.
3b.) civil unions are factually not marriage there for discrimination and not equal. They are on a state levels and some states block gays form them too.
3c.) you are allowed to feel that way but there no logic to support it really. are you against all PDA? politicians have been showing PDA for their significant others for a long time
4.) yep that pure bigotry right there, theres no reason to ignore it or keep it discreet . . in fact that opinion is pretty vile and hateful . . any country like that is disgusting and not based on freedom and rights.

well at least you are honest and open about your bigotry but by definition, it is bigotry none the less. :shrug:
i thank god views like yours dont run the US

 

[AGENT J]

This post is probably too rational to be here. :lol:

LMAO, of course you see bigotry, hate, anti-freedom and anti-rights as "rational" :lamo
its always awesome when you totally expose yourself for what your views truly are, i love it!

 

[veritas1]

LMAO, of course you see bigotry, hate, anti-freedom and anti-rights as "rational" :lamo
its always awesome when you totally expose yourself for what your views truly are, i love it!

Boy am I chagrined. I may never post here again.. sniff..sniff....:lamo

I notice you didn't give the original poster the same mental diarrhea you left here. Guess I'm just lucky.:lol:

 

[AGENT J]

Boy am I chagrined. I may never post here again.. sniff..sniff....:lamo

Hey look, another retarded strawman posted by you . . LMAO par for the course, i love it :laughat:

 

[veritas1]

Hey look, another retarded strawman posted by you . . LMAO par for the course, i love it :laughat:

:screwy

 

[AGENT J]

:screwy

and now the personal attacks since you got nothing else, more par for the course!!!:2rofll:
AWESOME!!! owning your posts is always so easy. Post again!!!

 

[veritas1]

and now the personal attacks since you got nothing else, more par for the course!!!:2rofll:
AWESOME!!! owning your posts is always so easy. Post again!!!

You've done nothing but launch personal attacks from your first post. So, in addition to being unable to actually debate anything, you're also a total hypocrite. Go figure.

 

[AGENT J]

1.) You've done nothing but launch personal attacks from your first post.
2.) So, in addition to being unable to actually debate anything, you're also a total hypocrite. Go figure.

yes you posted again!!!

1.) wrong again i factually identified by definition your views/post if that bothers you change your views
2.) see #1 this retarded lie was already proven factually wrong LMAO another swing and a miss!!!!

any other mistakes you want me to fix for you let me know!!! you're welcome!

opcorn2:

 

[veritas1]

yes you posted again!!!

1.) wrong again i factually identified by definition your views/post if that bothers you change your views
2.) see #1 this retarded lie was already proven factually wrong LMAO another swing and a miss!!!!

any other mistakes you want me to fix for you let me know!!!

opcorn2:

Your opinions aren't facts. I know this is a shock to you but there it is.

 

[AGENT J]

Your opinions aren't facts. I know this is a shock to you but there it is.

hey look ANOTHER failed retarded strawman!!!!! AWESOME!!!!!!! LMAO
Your post fails again!

 

[ataraxia]

On the contrary. Christians like me in the 1850s were running underground railways to the north and helping slaves flee slavery.

Not all you Christians.
Why would Christians think slavery was bad? That was the custom of the time. I thought you said the Bible said that should be OK if slavery was the law and custom of the land. It was the law and custom of the South. Why would you violate the law of the land?

"Slavery was established by the decree of Almighty God. It is sanctioned in the Bible, in both testaments, from Genesis to Revelation."
-Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederate States of America.

"There is not a single verse in the Bible prohibiting slavery, but many proscribing it. It is not, therefore we conclude, immoral."
-Revered Joseph Abelson, South Carolina, 1859

"The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example." Rev. Richard Furman, the first president of the South Carolina Baptist Convention.

Where did you get the idea it is wrong? In fact, according to Biblical scholars, slavery was protected under the 10th commandment, where slaves are protected property that you shall not covet, in the same category as oxen, sheep, and women:

“How dare you, in the face of the sanction and protection afforded to slave property in the Ten Commandments — how dare you denounce slaveholding as a sin? When you remember that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Job — the men with whom the Almighty conversed, with whose names He emphatically connects His own most holy name, and to whom He vouchsafed to give the character of ‘perfect, upright, fearing God and eschewing evil’ — that all these men were slaveholders, does it not strike you that you are guilty of something very little short of blasphemy?”
-MJ Raphall, 1861

You should be ashamed of yourself for so flagrantly violating the commandments of God! Have you no shame or decency?

 

[OscarLevant]

There were various points in which the "orthodox" position was defined, but I think it's clear the Pauline Proto-Orthodox movement won out over Gnostic interpretations. I think scholars are pretty clear that most of the New Testament texts are not from the attributed author, but I think they represent a pretty consistent condemnation of Homosexuality, such as the very stark one given it Romans 1. In this one he compares the exchange of one's sexuality to the darkest of exchanges, the replacement of god with idols. It goes on to say that because people have suppressed the truth of god in unrighteous that they are induced to all kinds of abominable behavior such as homosexuality and it clearly says the wrath of god is stored up for such deeds.

Christianity from the Proto-Orthodox viewpoint (Pauline and not Gnostic) is clearly only in favor of monogamous relationships, and backed up by other texts from the first century which further condemns pederasty which was common in the Roman world.

If someone has a fundamentalist view of the Bible, its generally literal interpretation and inerrancy (nothing missing or incorrect), and its supremacy in their life, then you sadly must accept this abominable conclusion concerning homosexuality. Which is my point, the text is the problem, the Gnostics are irrelevant, its the fundamentalists and their interpretation of the Bible (which is sadly correct on the issue of homosexuality) which has made life hell for the LGBTQ community.

One is welcome to take modern hermeneutical approaches to interpret the text, but I do think you are departing from what a Jewish man like Paul would have actually felt. I tried to be a "Liberal" Christian where I basically only had a few books of the Bible I felt only somewhat confident in, but the cognitive dissonance was too paralyzing. I think people should just depart from the Bible, its too problematic a text, historically and morally.

I"m sure you meant the generic "you", but, I, personally, have no skin in this race, I'm not Christian nor Jewish.

I like the Gospel Of Thomas, or that of it that I can understand. Some of it seems rather cryptic, or mystic, etc.

 

[Wan]

The question was how anyone could claim to know whether God existed. That is an unknowable fact for us. We may believe one way or another but those beliefs are only opinions, not facts. We may have all sorts of reasons for holding those opinions but they remain opinions.

This is why I am agnostic, and why I am sometimes puzzled by certain very militant atheists. I am not saying that God must definitely exist, however with some of them, they are so sure about it. I am like, you can't even prove it (that God does not exist), how can you be so sure? I really think being an agnostic makes more sense than being an atheist.

Baloney. All equal protection requires is that whatever the state is doing must be equally available to all parties who qualify for it. Marriage had a specific qualification. (ie. two people of opposite sexes) As such, states were required to marry any male and female meeting the conditions to be married in that state. What you argue for is not equal application but the invention of a whole new form of marriage by insisting that there is some Constitutional right to it. I contend that it cannot be found and doesn't exist. Only the most elastic interpretations allow for this claim.

Agreed. It's like I said, marriage has always been defined as the union between a man and a woman. The reason gays "can't get married" is because they do not fit this definition. It's not because they are being deprived of their rights. Not to mention they can already have civil union. For them to insist on marriage, I really think they are just throwing a temper tantrum expecting the rest of the population to just give in to them.

To illustrate my point: I am 39 years old. If I go to a kindergarten and ask to enroll, the teacher would turn me away because I am too old. However, I just stand there and cry, "omg I have been made a second class citizen! My rights have been trampled upon! This is discrimination!". I am sure most reasonable people would say I am being ridiculous. And yet this is pretty much what the gays are doing.

 

[marke]

Not all you Christians.
Why would Christians think slavery was bad? That was the custom of the time. I thought you said the Bible said that should be OK if slavery was the law and custom of the land. It was the law and custom of the South. Why would you violate the law of the land?

Slavery is acceptable or was acceptable in times and circumstances which God allowed. Slavery in the US was not one of those times and places. But if I had been born a slave in the US regardless of whether or not slavery was condoned of God at the time, I should have yielded my life to the Lord to either deliver me or help me be content to kindly serve my master as if serving the Lord.

Yes, I break laws that I believe are not the will of God. I was in business for nearly 20 years and I hired over the years different illegal aliens because they needed a job to feed their families and the government was not helping them.

Where did you get the idea it is wrong? In fact, according to Biblical scholars, slavery was protected under the 10th commandment, where slaves are protected property that you shall not covet, in the same category as oxen, sheep, and women:

Man-made laws also legalize abortion, which is murder in God's eyes.

You should be ashamed of yourself for so flagrantly violating the commandments of God! Have you no shame or decency?

I do pray the Lord will guide me through the mess that is this world run by politicians.

 

[JasperL]

I'm sure I haven't imagined all the disparagement of white men nor from what quarters it has emanated. It surely hasn't been from conservatives.

I don't know what you've imagined or heard. All I know is you're not quoting anyone, and you've attributed this supposed hostility to white males to groups ("the left" or "powers that be") that in the former comprise at least 10s of millions of individuals and that for the latter aren't a homogeneous group. Here's a hint - what some individual or even....50 individuals say on Twitter or even on some cable news outlet does not necessarily represent the views of 60 or 70 million individuals, or even all the bigwigs in the Democratic party. Seems to be obvious to me, but maybe not to you.

 

[JasperL]

1. Mayor Pete should have just said that he disagrees with Vice President Pence on the gay issue and said nothing more.

2. I do not believe in "God," but there are many people that say they do. If they belong to a denomination that calls gay relations a sin, then it is understandable that they would oppose gay relations.

a. If one wants to label such people as "bigots," that is fine. Such people simply feel that they must obey the ideas of their denomination. And that's fine, too.

That's fine, but it's not anyone's beliefs that are a concern - it's public policy that would make their personal beliefs the law. A lot of people around here are 'opposed' to drinking. I don't care as long as they don't try to bring back prohibition.

3. I personally feel that gay people should be protected from gay bashing, from police entrapment, from discrimination in employment, etc.

a. I feel, however, "marriage" should be reserved for a man and a woman. Civil unions can provide most legal privileges of a married couple.

This is curious to me. From the state's standpoint, if a "marriage" is the same as a "civil union" or near enough, why do you care what it's called? And which legal privileges would you deny gay couples? Can you explain why you'd grant most but not all of those privileges?

b. I feel that Mayor Pete was wrong to kiss his husband on stage.

That's just saying, IMO, that some shame should still be attached to being gay, such that a decent person would shield it from the public view. I appreciate the honesty, myself. He's demonstrating with actions that he's not going to hide or downplay being gay - it's who he is, like it or not. That's fine with me. If you don't approve, that's OK, you don't have to vote for him.

4. IMHO, the best country for gay people is where gay relations are legal, the police ignore gay cruising, gays are discreet, and society simply ignores its existence. I believe that many gay people would like such a society. To the best of my knowledge, there is only one country that qualifies in that respect, but I do not wish to name it.

I guess I don't necessarily agree with the "discreet" part. The research that I've seen indicates that the most common way minds are changed about gay people is simply people knowing gay people, and they discover that for all purposes that matter, they're people.....who are gay. The end. So their obligation to being discreet is to be as discreet as straight couples, no more, no less.

 

[Wan]

I don't know what you've imagined or heard. All I know is you're not quoting anyone, and you've attributed this supposed hostility to white males to groups ("the left" or "powers that be") that in the former comprise at least 10s of millions of individuals and that for the latter aren't a homogeneous group. Here's a hint - what some individual or even....50 individuals say on Twitter or even on some cable news outlet does not necessarily represent the views of 60 or 70 million individuals, or even all the bigwigs in the Democratic party. Seems to be obvious to me, but maybe not to you.

He didn't say all those 60, 70 million democrats are all like that, though. I think (could be wrong), that he meant that he notices that the ones who spew anti-white male venom are mostly liberals. This is not the same as saying all liberals/democrats do it.

 

[JasperL]

Baloney. All equal protection requires is that whatever the state is doing must be equally available to all parties who qualify for it. Marriage had a specific qualification. (ie. two people of opposite sexes) As such, states were required to marry any male and female meeting the conditions to be married in that state. What you argue for is not equal application but the invention of a whole new form of marriage by insisting that there is some Constitutional right to it. I contend that it cannot be found and doesn't exist. Only the most elastic interpretations allow for this claim.

The argument for allowing states to prohibit interracial marriages included that argument. Marriage had a specific qualification - same race. Marriage was 'equally available' to anyone of any race, therefore there was no equal protection issue - blacks could marry, same as whites could marry. Similarly, whites couldn't marry blacks, same as blacks couldn't marry whites, so there was no discrimination! Whites and blacks were both prohibited from marrying someone of another race, but could equally marry anyone of their own race!

Of course that's nonsense, and when you recognize that as nonsense you might understand why the majority didn't agree with your interpretation as applied to SSM.

 

[Wan]

guess I don't necessarily agree with the "discreet" part. The research that I've seen indicates that the most common way minds are changed about gay people is simply people knowing gay people

Why do you want to change people's minds about gays? Why can't you leave people alone?

 

[JasperL]

He didn't say all those 60, 70 million democrats are all like that, though. I think (could be wrong), that he meant that he notices that the ones who spew anti-white male venom are mostly liberals. This is not the same as saying all liberals/democrats do it.

Well, the point is no one can know who is in this group named "the left" because it's undefined. Or who are the "powers that be." Etc. If you go back through the thread, there are no quotes attributed to named people, no polls referenced, in fact the polls contradict the view advanced. So it's taking some comments by someone - maybe whole dozens of someones! - and then tarring the entire "the left" with those views. It's nonsense.

And you're doing the same thing - who is spewing anti-white venom? If you have a name and quote them, maybe we can agree it's BS. I can't even begin to agree or not because I don't know who said this unknown "anti-white venom" or who they represent if anyone beyond themselves.

 

[JustHanging]

You clowns have to call everyone "bigot" , "racist", "white nationalist", etc. because you can't win on the facts or the issues. Buttigieg is going after Pence to put himself in the news and get on the good side of the party fringe now running things. Pence never said a word about Buttigieg.

Nonsense.

Conservatives chose the leader of the racist Birther Movement as their leader, a man who attacked the POTUS for a decade, and said he was unAmerican, for no other reason than the POTUS had dark skin.

Whenever Trump needs to excite the base, he attacks coloured people. Black football players, immigrants, Latinos, Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Muslims. That's what Trump thinks of his base. Do you think you know Trump's base better than Trump himself?

Maya Angelou said 'When someone shows you who they are believe them; the first time.' Conservatives showed us who they are. I believe them. Why shouldn't I?