One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Faith, Religion, Spirituality
The new wave of indignation over "bigotry" - and the truth of the matter
Page 1 of 2 next>
Jul 5, 2015 19:24:44   #
Theo Loc: Within 1000 miles of Tampa, Florida
 
Wikipedia defines "Bigotry" as follows -

In British English it refers to a state of mind where a person is obstinately, irrationally, or unfairly intolerant of ideas, opinions, or beliefs that differ from their own, and intolerant of the people who hold them.

In American English, the term can be used similarly; however, it can also be used to refer to intolerance towards a group of people in general based on their group characteristics such as race, religion, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status.

I agree 100% with that definition. And the key phrase in that definition is "obstinately, irrationally, or unfairly intolerant." "Obstinate" is defined as "perversely adhering to an opinion, purpose, or course in spite of reason, arguments, or persuasion <obstinate resistance to change>" - and "Perversely" is defined as " showing a deliberate and obstinate desire to behave in a way that is unreasonable or unacceptable."

Unreasonable is not the same as unacceptable. The Supreme Court is certainly unreasonable but will expect everyone to accept their foolishness anyway. So the definitions seem to mean opposing things.

And "Obstinate" uses "Perverse" in its definition, which in turn "perversely" uses" "obstinate" in its definition. So it is circular defining at best. Does that make me unreasonable if I do not accept the circular definitions of the prevailing scholarship as to what the terms mean?

It seems to me that the term "Bigot" has been stolen for use that is not within the purview of its original meaning.

It used to reference one who against reason and consensus considers something to be unacceptable. The key to
"bigotry" seems to be some degree of
"unreasonableness" which is contrary to right thinking.

By that standard, there is nothing about "bigotry" involved in denying queers the power to take over the moral status of a nation. In fact, it is unreasonable to allow it, because it goes against consensus and most certainly is not reasonable. Why would a nation adopt something as a moral value if God destroys nations because of the practice thereof?

No, I will continue to join the battle as long as God gives me breath. And I will use reason, love, and consensus and
persuasion as my ammunition.

Reply
Jul 5, 2015 20:31:10   #
Rufus Loc: Deep South
 
Theo wrote:
Wikipedia defines "Bigotry" as follows -

In British English it refers to a state of mind where a person is obstinately, irrationally, or unfairly intolerant of ideas, opinions, or beliefs that differ from their own, and intolerant of the people who hold them.

In American English, the term can be used similarly; however, it can also be used to refer to intolerance towards a group of people in general based on their group characteristics such as race, religion, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status.

I agree 100% with that definition. And the key phrase in that definition is "obstinately, irrationally, or unfairly intolerant." "Obstinate" is defined as "perversely adhering to an opinion, purpose, or course in spite of reason, arguments, or persuasion <obstinate resistance to change>" - and "Perversely" is defined as " showing a deliberate and obstinate desire to behave in a way that is unreasonable or unacceptable."

Unreasonable is not the same as unacceptable. The Supreme Court is certainly unreasonable but will expect everyone to accept their foolishness anyway. So the definitions seem to mean opposing things.

And "Obstinate" uses "Perverse" in its definition, which in turn "perversely" uses" "obstinate" in its definition. So it is circular defining at best. Does that make me unreasonable if I do not accept the circular definitions of the prevailing scholarship as to what the terms mean?

It seems to me that the term "Bigot" has been stolen for use that is not within the purview of its original meaning.

It used to reference one who against reason and consensus considers something to be unacceptable. The key to
"bigotry" seems to be some degree of
"unreasonableness" which is contrary to right thinking.

By that standard, there is nothing about "bigotry" involved in denying queers the power to take over the moral status of a nation. In fact, it is unreasonable to allow it, because it goes against consensus and most certainly is not reasonable. Why would a nation adopt something as a moral value if God destroys nations because of the practice thereof?

No, I will continue to join the battle as long as God gives me breath. And I will use reason, love, and consensus and
persuasion as my ammunition.
Wikipedia defines "Bigotry" as follows -... (show quote)


:thumbup: Bless you Theo. Good Post. You are a soldier in the Army of The Lord. Amen.

Reply
Jul 5, 2015 23:59:10   #
AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State
 
Rufus wrote:
:thumbup: Bless you Theo. Good Post. You are a soldier in the Army of The Lord. Amen.


Be careful of totally believing his position. :idea:

Reply
 
 
Jul 6, 2015 09:13:42   #
Theo Loc: Within 1000 miles of Tampa, Florida
 
AuntiE wrote:
Be careful of totally believing his position. :idea:


Excellent Advice. I go slow myself, when I look at what I believe. It becomes quite a responsibility when you think about it. And sometimes scary.

I does not bother me when others call for caution about my position perspective. Please, feel free to urge caution about anything you see from my perspective. (Scary huh?)

Reply
Jul 6, 2015 09:24:39   #
Rufus Loc: Deep South
 
AuntiE wrote:
Be careful of totally believing his position. :idea:


Thank you Auntie. It was late and I may have sped read. Don't remember.

Reply
Jul 6, 2015 09:25:37   #
Rufus Loc: Deep South
 
Theo wrote:
Excellent Advice. I go slow myself, when I look at what I believe. It becomes quite a responsibility when you think about it. And sometimes scary.

I does not bother me when others call for caution about my position perspective. Please, feel free to urge caution about anything you see from my perspective. (Scary huh?)

Yep, my mind is like a bad neighborhood. You don't want to go in there alone.

Reply
Jul 7, 2015 02:48:31   #
fiatlux
 
Theo wrote:
Wikipedia defines "Bigotry" as follows -

In British English it refers to a state of mind where a person is obstinately, irrationally, or unfairly intolerant of ideas, opinions, or beliefs that differ from their own, and intolerant of the people who hold them.

In American English, the term can be used similarly; however, it can also be used to refer to intolerance towards a group of people in general based on their group characteristics such as race, religion, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status.

I agree 100% with that definition. And the key phrase in that definition is "obstinately, irrationally, or unfairly intolerant." "Obstinate" is defined as "perversely adhering to an opinion, purpose, or course in spite of reason, arguments, or persuasion <obstinate resistance to change>" - and "Perversely" is defined as " showing a deliberate and obstinate desire to behave in a way that is unreasonable or unacceptable."

Unreasonable is not the same as unacceptable. The Supreme Court is certainly unreasonable but will expect everyone to accept their foolishness anyway. So the definitions seem to mean opposing things.

And "Obstinate" uses "Perverse" in its definition, which in turn "perversely" uses" "obstinate" in its definition. So it is circular defining at best. Does that make me unreasonable if I do not accept the circular definitions of the prevailing scholarship as to what the terms mean?

It seems to me that the term "Bigot" has been stolen for use that is not within the purview of its original meaning.

It used to reference one who against reason and consensus considers something to be unacceptable. The key to
"bigotry" seems to be some degree of
"unreasonableness" which is contrary to right thinking.

By that standard, there is nothing about "bigotry" involved in denying queers the power to take over the moral status of a nation. In fact, it is unreasonable to allow it, because it goes against consensus and most certainly is not reasonable. Why would a nation adopt something as a moral value if God destroys nations because of the practice thereof?

No, I will continue to join the battle as long as God gives me breath. And I will use reason, love, and consensus and
persuasion as my ammunition.
Wikipedia defines "Bigotry" as follows -... (show quote)


God has destroyed no nation for "the practice therein." This is silly.

Reply
 
 
Jul 7, 2015 05:56:08   #
Theo Loc: Within 1000 miles of Tampa, Florida
 
fiatlux wrote:
God has destroyed no nation for "the practice therein." This is silly.


"Woe unto them that call the destruction of nations "Silly."
[Theo 1:12][(That's me)

[GOD said this:]
Deuteronomy 7:1 When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou;2 And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them: 3 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. 4 For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.

2 Kings 21:9 But they hearkened not: and Manasseh seduced them to do more evil than did the nations whom the LORD destroyed before the children of Israel.

Acts 13:19 And when he had destroyed seven nations in the land of Chanaan, he divided their land to them by lot.

See if you can find Mu or Atlantis on any map.

Reply
Jul 7, 2015 09:29:01   #
Rufus Loc: Deep South
 
Theo wrote:
"Woe unto them that call the destruction of nations "Silly."
[Theo 1:12][(That's me)

[GOD said this:]
Deuteronomy 7:1 When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou;2 And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them: 3 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. 4 For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.

2 Kings 21:9 But they hearkened not: and Manasseh seduced them to do more evil than did the nations whom the LORD destroyed before the children of Israel.

Acts 13:19 And when he had destroyed seven nations in the land of Chanaan, he divided their land to them by lot.

See if you can find Mu or Atlantis on any map.
"Woe unto them that call the destruction of n... (show quote)


:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: Scripture, God's Holy Word is the authority.

Reply
Jul 7, 2015 23:12:37   #
alabuck Loc: Tennessee
 
Theo wrote:
"Woe unto them that call the destruction of nations "Silly."
[Theo 1:12][(That's me)

[GOD said this:]
Deuteronomy 7:1 When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou;2 And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them: 3 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. 4 For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.

2 Kings 21:9 But they hearkened not: and Manasseh seduced them to do more evil than did the nations whom the LORD destroyed before the children of Israel.

Acts 13:19 And when he had destroyed seven nations in the land of Chanaan, he divided their land to them by lot.

See if you can find Mu or Atlantis on any map.
"Woe unto them that call the destruction of n... (show quote)

------------
"Woe unto them that call the destruction of nations "Silly."
[Theo 1:12][(That's me)

Oh boy, Theo! I can see you've developed a "God complex." Not only do you speak for Him, now, you believe you ARE Him.

As to Mu, it's "Mu /mu&#720;/ (uppercase &#924;, lowercase &#956;; Ancient Greek &#956;&#8166; [m&#375;&#720;], Modern Greek &#956;&#953; or &#956;&#965; [mi]) is the 12th letter of the Greek alphabet. In the system of Greek numerals it has a value of 40. Mu was derived from the Egyptian hieroglyphic symbol for water (&#78358;), which had been simplified by the Phoenicians and named after their word for water, to becomePhoenician mem.svg(mem). Letters that arose from mu include the Roman M and the Cyrillic &#1052;." (From Wikipedia)

As to Arlantis, "Atlantis (Ancient Greek: &#7944;&#964;&#955;&#945;&#957;&#964;&#8054;&#962; &#957;&#8134;&#963;&#959;&#962;, "island of Atlas") is a fictional island mentioned within an allegory on the hubris of nations in Plato's works Timaeus and Critias, where it represents the antagonist naval power that besieges "Ancient Athens", the pseudo-historic embodiment of Plato's ideal state (see The Republic). In the story, Athens was able to repel the Atlantean attack, unlike any other nation of the (western) known world,[1] supposedly giving testament to the superiority of Plato's concept of a state.[2][3] At the end of the story, Atlantis eventually falls out of favor with the gods and famously submerges into the Atlantic Ocean.

Despite its minor importance in Plato's work, the Atlantis story has had a considerable impact on literature. The allegorical aspect of Atlantis was taken up in utopian works of several Renaissance writers, such as Bacon's New Atlantis and More's Utopia.[4] On the other hand, 19th-century amateur scholars misinterpreted Plato's account as historical tradition, most notably in Donnelly's Atlantis: The Antediluvian World. Plato's vague indications of the time of the events—more than 9,000 years before his day[5]—and the alleged location of Atlantis—"beyond the Pillars of Hercules"—has led to much pseudoscientific speculation.[6] As a consequence, Atlantis has become a byword for any and all supposed advanced prehistoric lost civilizations and continues to inspire contemporary fiction, from comic books to films.

While present-day philologists and historians unanimously accept the story's fictional character,[7] there is still debate on what served as its inspiration. The fact that Plato borrowed some of his allegories and metaphors—most notably the story of Gyges[8]—from older traditions has caused a number of scholars to investigate possible inspiration of Atlantis from Egyptian records of the Thera eruption, the Sea Peoples invasion, or the Trojan War.[9][10][11][12] Others have rejected this chain of tradition as implausible and insist that Plato designed the story from scratch,[13][14][15] drawing loose inspiration from contemporary events like the failed Athenian invasion of Sicily in 415–413 BC or the destruction of Helike in 373 BC.[16]." (From Wikipedia, 'emphasis' is mine)

As you can see, your 2 examples have NOTHING to do with Christianity or the Bible. As I've posted before, this is a "secular" and a "civil rights" issue, not a religious issue. That's how the SCOTUS defined it.

And, as you like to be Biblical in your quotes, how do you argue against the following? Do you not accept these words as "God's words?" Remember, these are verses from the Bible, telling us to obey our governmental authorities. Are you willing to go against what Jesus and Paul have said?

"Hebrews 13:17New International Version (NIV); "17 Have confidence in your leaders and submit to their authority, because they keep watch over you as those who must give an account. Do this so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no benefit to you."

Romans 13:1-7; "Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same."

1 Timothy 2:1-3: "First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior."

Titus 3:1; "Remind them to be subject to rulers, to authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good deed."

1 Peter 2:13-14; "Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right."

Mark 12:17; "And Jesus said to them, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." And they were amazed at Him."

Luke 20:25; "And He said to them, "Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."

Hebrews 13:17; "Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you."

You hold up the Bible and claim to uphold the Constitution. Yet, in your next breaths, you disrespect the "Word of God" and dishonor the Constitution by denouncing the SCOTUS and clamoring for a change in the Constitution, itself? Why? Because the rulings by the SCOTUS goes contrary to your religious beliefs. THE SCOTUS IS A SECULAR BODY, NOT A RELIGIOUS BODY!

You need to be very careful with what you ask for. Given the "over-the-top" rhetoric that permeates this forum, I woe the day this becomes a truly "Christian country." The USA will become a true "hell-hole," then. It have no doubt that our political parties will form along denominational lines and that none of the several Christain denominations will be able to come together on how best to rule the country. Then, a sectarian-based civil war, WILL erupt that will make the religious wars in the Middle East look like a trip to DisneyLand!

Remember, our religious history; the persecutions of the Jews through the ages; the wars between the Protestants and Roman Catholics; wars between the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox Church; to name just a few. Can you remember studying about the Spanish Inquision? How about the "religious freedoms" practiced by the Puritians in the New World? Or, the "religious reasons" that caused the Purtians and Quakers to have to flee England and Holland? Yes, we have an excellent track-record regarding our religious freedoms (read that "persecutions.")

Remember, too, that some of the original states had "state religions." Virginia declared the Anglicanism as its State religion. Did you know, that because of that, that Baptists and Presbyterians were legally prosecuted and persecuted? There are recordings of several of their ministers being "dunked" for "illegally preaching their 'bad religions.'" Who would'a thunk it?

Yea, buddy! Our becoming a "Christan" nation will be a really good thing. NOT! If you think "sharia law" is bad, try instituting some of the punishments for sinners found in the Old Testament. Some of our more strict interpreters of the Bible will have a field-day writing our new criminal justice codes.

Sorry, I don't care to live in a "theo-crazy."

Reply
Jul 7, 2015 23:47:24   #
alabuck Loc: Tennessee
 
Perhaps, you need to address a different question. What's immoral when compared to illegal? Is it illegal to hide a company's profits in off-shore accounts? No. Is it unethical! Yes. Is it unethical for someone to divorce their sick spouse? Yes. Is it illegal? No. Is it illegal to prostitute ones self sexually? Yes. Is it unethical? Not to those who use a prostitute's services.

Is it illegal to be a homosexual? No. Is it immoral to be a homosexual? The answer depends on who is answering the question and what their ethics are. Some would say, "no," it's not immoral. Others would say, "yes," it is immoral.

It had already been established that it wasn't illegal to be a practicing homosexual. But, of the question answered by a majority of the SCOTUS, their answer was based of the legality of the right of homosexuals to marry and that recognition to carry over to all 50 states.

Their conclusion was based on Article 4, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution; where it's says (I'm paraphrasing) that the rights exercised by the citizens of one state must be recognized in all other states. Some states had, already, legalized homosexual marriage. Now, unless you want to open up a big can of worms and try to do away with that part of the Constitution, or, unless a future SCOTUS over-turns this ruling, you'll just have to learn to live with it.

See my previous post

Just saying.....

Reply
 
 
Jul 8, 2015 19:50:29   #
Theo Loc: Within 1000 miles of Tampa, Florida
 
[quote=alabuck]------------
"Woe unto them that call the destruction of nations "Silly."
[Theo 1:12][(That's me)

Oh boy, Theo! I can see you've developed a "God complex." Not only do you speak for Him, now, you believe you ARE Him.[/quote]

Any other stupid remarks you need to unload?

Quote:
As you can see, your 2 examples have NOTHING to do with Christianity or the Bible.


As usual you reference "two examples" when I offered nine for consideration. Seven were for the bible discussion, two were for the secular aspect of the discussion. You proved yourself unable to discern between the two, totally ignoring the seven to do a very good copy and paste of two. (I do not denigrate "copy and paste," because that is how most of our online stuff is produced.) I simply reference it because you did a good job of someone else's work. Again, I do not fault that either, because much of what we know is a result of someone else's work. I just want to give credit where it is due.

Quote:
As I've posted before, this is a "secular" and a "civil rights" issue, not a religious issue. That's how the SCOTUS defined it.


They were wrong. Why do you think there is so much discussion of religious rights? Precisely because it is a religious issue, stolen by Scotus and destroyed for secular reasons.

Quote:
And, as you like to be Biblical in your quotes, how do you argue against the following? Do you not accept these words as "God's words?" Remember, these are verses from the Bible, telling us to obey our governmental authorities. Are you willing to go against what Jesus and Paul have said?

"Hebrews 13:17New International Version (NIV); "17 Have confidence in your leaders and submit to their authority, because they keep watch over you as those who must give an account. Do this so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no benefit to you."

Romans 13:1-7; "Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same."

1 Timothy 2:1-3: "First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior."

Titus 3:1; "Remind them to be subject to rulers, to authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good deed."

1 Peter 2:13-14; "Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right."

Mark 12:17; "And Jesus said to them, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." And they were amazed at Him."

Luke 20:25; "And He said to them, "Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."

Hebrews 13:17; "Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you."
And, as you like to be Biblical in your quotes, ho... (show quote)


Now do a bible study on how many times the kings (authorities) and priests of Israel broke God's laws and led the people astray, and the people were punished for not doing something about the sinful leadership.

Quote:
You hold up the Bible and claim to uphold the Constitution. Yet, in your next breaths, you disrespect the "Word of God" and dishonor the Constitution by denouncing the SCOTUS and clamoring for a change in the Constitution, itself? Why? Because the rulings by the SCOTUS goes contrary to your religious beliefs. THE SCOTUS IS A SECULAR BODY, NOT A RELIGIOUS BODY!


WRONG! Every leader of every nation is appointed by God. They may believe it or they may not, which will not change anything at all.

SCOTUS happens to represent "judgment" to a religious nation; which means they should judge as righteous as they can. But they are not doing that. They are attempting to effect a "New World Order" in defiance of God.

It therefore becomes my obligation to point out their errors and their anti-God bias.

Quote:
You need to be very careful with what you ask for. Given the "over-the-top" rhetoric that permeates this forum, I woe the day this becomes a truly "Christian country." The USA will become a true "hell-hole," then. It have no doubt that our political parties will form along denominational lines and that none of the several Christain denominations will be able to come together on how best to rule the country. Then, a sectarian-based civil war, WILL erupt that will make the religious wars in the Middle East look like a trip to DisneyLand!
You need to be very careful with what you ask for.... (show quote)


What you describe has nothing to do with being a
"Christian nation." It has to do with "churchanity" running wild.

Quote:
Remember, our religious history; the persecutions of the Jews through the ages; the wars between the Protestants and Roman Catholics; wars between the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox Church; to name just a few. Can you remember studying about the Spanish Inquision? How about the "religious freedoms" practiced by the Puritians in the New World? Or, the "religious reasons" that caused the Purtians and Quakers to have to flee England and Holland? Yes, we have an excellent track-record regarding our religious freedoms (read that "persecutions.")

Remember, too, that some of the original states had "state religions." Virginia declared the Anglicanism as its State religion. Did you know, that because of that, that Baptists and Presbyterians were legally prosecuted and persecuted? There are recordings of several of their ministers being "dunked" for "illegally preaching their 'bad religions.'" Who would'a thunk it?

Yea, buddy! Our becoming a "Christan" nation will be a really good thing. NOT! If you think "sharia law" is bad, try instituting some of the punishments for sinners found in the Old Testament. Some of our more strict interpreters of the Bible will have a field-day writing our new criminal justice codes.
Remember, our religious history; the persecutions ... (show quote)


Being "Christian" has nothing whatsoever to do with obeying the laws of Moses that were given to Israel, and not to any other people.

God's laws and commandments were Only for Israel, and no other nation; "And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?" [Deu 4:8]

"The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. 3 The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day.[Deut 5:2-3]

Deuteronomy 4:8 And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?9 Only take heed to thyself, and keep thy soul diligently, lest thou forget the things which thine eyes have seen, and lest they depart from thy heart all the days of thy life: but teach them thy sons, and thy sons' sons;10 Specially the day that thou stoodest before the LORD thy God in Horeb, when the LORD said unto me, Gather me the people together, and I will make them hear my words, that they may learn to fear me all the days that they shall live upon the earth, and that they may teach their children.

Deuteronomy 5:2 The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. 3 The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day.

Quote:
Sorry, I don't care to live in a "theo-crazy."


Be careful, God may give you what you ask for.

Reply
Jul 9, 2015 01:54:00   #
ColdDrink
 
Theo wrote:
Wikipedia defines "Bigotry" as follows -

In British English it refers to a state of mind where a person is obstinately, irrationally, or unfairly intolerant of ideas, opinions, or beliefs that differ from their own, and intolerant of the people who hold them.

In American English, the term can be used similarly; however, it can also be used to refer to intolerance towards a group of people in general based on their group characteristics such as race, religion, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status. Their humanity was lost.

I agree 100% with that definition. And the key phrase in that definition is "obstinately, irrationally, or unfairly intolerant." "Obstinate" is defined as "perversely adhering to an opinion, purpose, or course in spite of reason, arguments, or persuasion <obstinate resistance to change>" - and "Perversely" is defined as " showing a deliberate and obstinate desire to behave in a way that is unreasonable or unacceptable."

Unreasonable is not the same as unacceptable. The Supreme Court is certainly unreasonable but will expect everyone to accept their foolishness anyway. So the definitions seem to mean opposing things.

And "Obstinate" uses "Perverse" in its definition, which in turn "perversely" uses" "obstinate" in its definition. So it is circular defining at best. Does that make me unreasonable if I do not accept the circular definitions of the prevailing scholarship as to what the terms mean?

It seems to me that the term "Bigot" has been stolen for use that is not within the purview of its original meaning.

It used to reference one who against reason and consensus considers something to be unacceptable. The key to
"bigotry" seems to be some degree of
"unreasonableness" which is contrary to right thinking.

By that standard, there is nothing about "bigotry" involved in denying queers the power to take over the moral status of a nation. In fact, it is unreasonable to allow it, because it goes against consensus and most certainly is not reasonable. Why would a nation adopt something as a moral value if God destroys nations because of the practice thereof?

No, I will continue to join the battle as long as God gives me breath. And I will use reason, love, and consensus and
persuasion as my ammunition.
Wikipedia defines "Bigotry" as follows -... (show quote)


Very interesting argument. And many times in exchanges this is thrown back and forth like ping-pong for those who disagree with each other. A little like the playground of our youth: "You are ___." No, I'm not, you are ___." "No, I'm not, you are ___."

Yet there are people who are clearly and sadly bigots. I would have to add hate and fear to the definition of bigot, though this may be so buried only a walled indignation or anger can be seen on the surface. Reason or mercy or forgiveness cannot penetrate. Bigots naturally condemn. They judge the objects of their scorn as thoroughly "other" and of no worth. This is the fuel of genocide. High octane. This is what the Nazis made of the Jews. Their clever and persistent debasing of these people gradually inculcated a distrust in, then a dislike for, and then a disgust at this race and religion.

Reply
Jul 9, 2015 19:55:57   #
Theo Loc: Within 1000 miles of Tampa, Florida
 
alabuck wrote:
Perhaps, you need to address a different question. What's immoral when compared to illegal? Is it illegal to hide a company's profits in off-shore accounts? No. Is it unethical! Yes. Is it unethical for someone to divorce their sick spouse? Yes. Is it illegal? No. Is it illegal to prostitute ones self sexually? Yes. Is it unethical? Not to those who use a prostitute's services.

Is it illegal to be a homosexual? No.


By that standard, all anyone has to do is find all those others who defies whatever law is their focus, and defy it until it gets changed by so called "Popular demand." That comes to 1.8% of the population, that screamed and ranted, held "Pride Parades" pissed and wailed and moaned about "Unfair" "Unfair" until the courts folded and removed anti-sodomy laws, so the Supreme Court could pass a judgment that said "There is no law against Sodomy, so it must be alright."

Quote:
Their conclusion was based on Article 4, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution; where it's says (I'm paraphrasing) that the rights exercised by the citizens of one state must be recognized in all other states. Some states had, already, legalized homosexual marriage. Now, unless you want to open up a big can of worms and try to do away with that part of the Constitution, or, unless a future SCOTUS over-turns this ruling, you'll just have to learn to live with it.


No I don't All I have to do, is follow the example demonstrated by the queer society, and break the new law until it goes back to the old law, where 99.2 % of society agrees.

Just saying.....

Reply
Jul 9, 2015 22:49:11   #
ColdDrink
 
Theo wrote:
No I don't All I have to do, is follow the example demonstrated by the queer society, and break the new law until it goes back to the old law, where 99.2 % of society agrees.

Just saying.....


I can understand the need to exaggerate and say "99.2 % of society agrees." This is very far from true...in polls. But maybe not in the deeper recesses of the mind. People want to be seen as open-minded and fair, even if they thoroughly disagree. "Look how un-bigoted I am. Aren't I the bee's knees." Honesty will not reach your 99.2% but it will be at least twenty % higher than what we read, making it a majority.

Reply
Page 1 of 2 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Faith, Religion, Spirituality
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.