Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ONLYWAY]

you are confused...you are taking that verse out of context.   telling what God says plainly in His word is not judging.

We are told to judge, discern and even take corrective actions     John 7:24 judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment

Don't think you are getting it...let me try again.

people are born with dessire to sin but until they sin they are not a "sinner"...let's take a simple one...lying.  People are born with a desire to lie but until they lie they are not a liar.  it is the action, the choice, the decision that changes things.   Commenting on someone's actions is NOT bigotry.  NOR is it discrimination to judge someone based on what they choose to do.

it some one is born black they don't have to make any decision or do anything to be black.  It wasn't their choice...it was God's.  Making judgement calls about that person is bigotry and a slap in the face of God.

you are missing my point...just because someone is born with a certain inclination or even socialized into a certian direction that doesnt justify THEIR ACTIONS.  Commenting on someones actions is not bigotry.

Pretty sure I got your point. As I pointed out, you're not really commenting on someone's actions at all.

So the biblic 'Judge not, lest thee be judged' means what?

[Rebel]

Wow, liberty is alive, well and moving forward I see.

[rossby]

Commenting on someone's actions is NOT bigotry.

Then you're still missing the point by a mile. When you call someone a "sick pervert", you're not commenting on actions; you're commenting on a person.

You can split hairs all you'd like to justify your behavior to yourself. I'm just pointing out you're not even doing what you say you're doing.

[ONLYWAY]

NO you are not getting the point.   IF you call someone a sick pevert based on THEIR ACTIONS that is not bigotry.  It the basis of your comment that matters.  if you call someone a sick pervert because God made them with a skin color darker then your skin color then that is bigotry.

You are the one who is splitting hairs to justify your moral relativism...in the real world there is right and wrong /good and bad.  People are responsible for their actions.  You want to say that person is "acting" like a sick pervert but he is a good person...no he isn't!  a child molester is a 'sick pervert'.

if you lie then you are a liar.  if you steal then you are a thief if you sin then you are sinner.

Commenting on someone's actions is NOT bigotry.

Then you're still missing the point by a mile. When you call someone a "sick pervert", you're not commenting on actions; you're commenting on a person.

You can split hairs all you'd like to justify your behavior to yourself. I'm just pointing out you're not even doing what you say you're doing.

[greap]

NO you are not getting the point.   IF you call someone a sick pevert based on THEIR ACTIONS that is not bigotry.

Actually it is, you are according their actions a specific moral stance without according them an opportunity to challenge your notions on the issue. Consider: If you like it in the pooper and I call you a sick pervert then that is prejudice, if you then spend time telling me how liking it in the pooper is different but is still part of a loving relationship and I still call you a sick pervert then that is bigotry.

[rossby]

Commenting on someone's actions is NOT bigotry.

IF you call someone a sick pervert...

I consider a bigot to be someone who judges another for the way God made them.

Q.E.D.

if you lie then you are a liar.  if you steal then you are a thief if you sin then you are sinner.

Is a liar, thief, or sinner a sick pervert?

[ONLYWAY]

I didn't prevent anyone an opportunity to challenge anything.   My position is based on teh words of God (aka The Bible)...what are your positions based on?  who is the arrogant, self righteous one?   who is the bigot?

NO you are not getting the point.   IF you call someone a sick pevert based on THEIR ACTIONS that is not bigotry.

Actually it is, you are according their actions a specific moral stance without according them an opportunity to challenge your notions on the issue. Consider: If you like it in the pooper and I call you a sick pervert then that is prejudice, if you then spend time telling me how liking it in the pooper is different but is still part of a loving relationship and I still call you a sick pervert then that is bigotry.

[freedomroad]

It is kinda hard to tell if things are getting heated here again, but please continue to do a good job and keep things civil folks.  Thank you.  If I am out of line, please excuse this message.

[ONLYWAY]

NO - God didn't make anyone have homosexual sex or molest children or steal or lie...all those things are actions, choices those people made.  Everyone is born with a sin nature - desire to sin all sorts of sins - everyone has their own struggles but having a struggle doesnt justify sinning...nice try with the qed.  

the unchangeables that God picks for us are things like, race, counntry, time in history, body things, etc etc.  

The issue here is you have no moral compass...you dont believe anything is wrong (aka sin) and you think anyone who has a moral comapss and actually dares to speak what they think is a bigot.  YOU ARE THE BIGOT.  For example, you have no problem condeming or banning somene for sharing their faith which you call proselytizing but it is no problem if some homosexual wants to preach their belief system and try to get others to agree with them.  Or for you to ramble on with your made-up, make believe intellectual ramblings and try to get others to come to your clueless world view.

Commenting on someone's actions is NOT bigotry.

IF you call someone a sick pervert...

I consider a bigot to be someone who judges another for the way God made them.

Q.E.D.

if you lie then you are a liar.  if you steal then you are a thief if you sin then you are sinner.

Is a liar, thief, or sinner a sick pervert?

[John Edward Mercier]

But through Christ, he did restrict us from judgement upon others.

[rossby]

Everyone is born with a sin nature. . . .

Did you not tell us, "I consider a bigot to be someone who judges another for the way God made them"?

The issue here is you have no moral compass... you dont believe anything is wrong (aka sin)

Naaah.

and you think anyone who has a moral comapss and actually dares to speak what they think is a bigot.

Oh no, not at all. I know a lot of people have a strong moral compass and would "dare" speak their minds who I would never call bigots.

YOU ARE THE BIGOT.  

That's certainly possible. Which, by definition, I suppose would make me not a bigot... a minor technicality, I'm sure.

For example, you have no problem condeming or banning somene for sharing their faith which you call proselytizing but it is no problem if some homosexual wants to preach their belief system and try to get others to agree with them.

You're free to do as you wish here so long as you follow the forum guidelines. That includes keeping general religious discussion in the Religion section and following the rules stickied there. If you choose not to follow those rules and people complain, you know the consequences.

Or for you to ramble on with your made-up, make believe intellectual ramblings and try to get others to come to your clueless world view.

We call that "debate" and "discussion". And I understand if you feel threatened by it. But there's really no need for incivility.

[dalebert]

who is the arrogant, self righteous one?

Dood...  with a handle like "ONLYWAY" in all caps, you seriously just asked that with a straight face?

[dalebert]

For example, you have no problem condeming or banning somene for sharing their faith which you call proselytizing but it is no problem if some homosexual wants to preach their belief system and try to get others to agree with them.

While on the subject of bigotry, in particular, it's absurd to argue that these are just two different points of view of equal value.  I am arguing tolerance for others based on choices which do not infringe on the rights of others (definitely not bigotry) and you are arguing intolerance* for others based on their choices which do not infringe on the rights of others (bigotry IMHO).

None of that speaks to whether there really is a God who proclaims certain behaviors as wrong.  That doesn't mean it's not bigotry.  It just means that particular form of it is enshrined into your worldview as an unchangeable constant of the universe.  I would agree that we need to embrace that bigotry if your worldview is in fact reality, and that's a really long debate that I think people should be welcome to have (somewhere else).

When you're having a discussion with someone to find some agreed-upon truth, you have to start with some shared foundation which you already agree on.  Your particular worldview of a Creator who proclaims homosexual behavior to be a sin is not a shared foundation for most of the people in this thread.  To continue arguing (logically at least) that others should embrace this particular form of bigotry as a constant of the universe, you need to first back up to some shared foundation of belief and argue for those others to share your beliefs in that very specific view of God.  Meanwhile what free-staters ought to have as a shared foundation from which to continue a discussion is some degree of small "l" libertarianism, and at the foundation of libertarianism is tolerance which is antithetical to bigotry.  It's why we're here, after all.

To sum up, I feel that your arguments provide no support for these views not being bigotry.  Your arguments are that this particular form of bigotry is completely justified because (your) God says so.  And that's incredibly analogous to historical arguments for racism and slavery.  That was still bigotry then even as it was more accepted and this is still bigotry now.  I really do think such speech is out of place here.

* It's important to note before you respond that bigotry is an attitude toward others, not necessarily based on action.  For instance, you can be a very outspoken racist who believes blacks and whites and other races should segregate and never marry for their own good, but who doesn't want to enshrine racism into law or go out and burn crosses in people's lawns.  You'd still not be welcome here (I think.  Maybe I'm wrong and a moderator can correct me.) due to the atmosphere of intolerance that you would create on this forum with such outrageously bigoted opinions.  And who knows if there aren't some people like that here?  But they'd know to keep those opinions to themselves or at least to go have that discussion on the Stormfront forum where that kind of discussion is welcomed.

[WendellBerry]

Meanwhile what free-staters ought to have as a shared foundation from which to continue a discussion is some degree of small "l" libertarianism, and at the foundation of libertarianism is tolerance which is antithetical to bigotry.

The foundational tenet is the absolute right of self-ownership of which the non-aggression principle is derived for what is considered just or unjust action.

A round about way of formalizing what you wrote...

tolerance for others based on choices which do not infringe on the rights of others

[dalebert]

Don't hijack this thread and try to steer it in the direction of your pet subject like every thread you ever touch, TROLL.  I really don't have a big beef with you other than how you do that.  Is it so much to ask that you find a spot to have your debate and continue to have it THERE with anyone who cares to discuss it?  We don't need every thread to be about you.

Moderators, heads up--  if you see him try to take this thread completely off subject, will you please split the topic?  I've known this guy for years and I can smell his trolling from a mile away.