I'm Not a Tolerant Person

[Viker]

Not so much for me. Hardly any of my good Christian neighbors will talk to me anymore because I'm a Biden supporter.

My neighbors would probably be more forgiving towards me if I joined the Hells Angels and got a "I love Satan!" tattoo on my arm.

My neighbors suspect I'm in some sinister religious group (very true). They adore my Cthulhu and Black Phillip presidential candidate posters around election time.

 

[Revoltingest]

Dont you think to a religious believer an athiest is a terrorist in a sense?

Not to any reasonable believer.

...i dont mind my own business...

Do you assault, rob, or otherwise infringe upon the rights of others?

 

[Revoltingest]

Like socialism, for example.

Wrong thread, clowny.
Read the OP for the theme.

 

[kjw47]

Not to any reasonable believer.

Do you assault, rob, or otherwise infringe upon the rights of others?

I said in a sense, that they are always standing in opposition. This is a religious sight. no one can come in here and tell us to mind our own business. It makes 0 sense to do that. If we went into an athiest sight then it would be sensible to say mind your own business, but this sight is to talk about religious matters. Its you who are invading our sight, thus you must want to hear religious matters, or just stand in opposition like a terrorist in a sense. because we arent stopping talking about them in this sight. that is 1+1=2

 

[Revoltingest]

I said in a sense, that they are always standing in opposition. This is a religious sight. no one can come in here and tell us to mind our own business. It makes 0 sense to do that. If we went into an athiest sight then it would be sensible to say mind your own business, but this sight is to talk about religious matters. Its you who are invading our sight, thus you must want to hear religious matters, or just stand in opposition like a terrorist in a sense. because we arent stopping talking about them in this sight. that is 1+1=2

It seems that "to mind one's business"
means different things to us.

BTW, this is a "site", not a "sight".
There....I feel better now.

 

[Polymath257]

I said in a sense, that they are always standing in opposition. This is a religious sight. no one can come in here and tell us to mind our own business. It makes 0 sense to do that. If we went into an athiest sight then it would be sensible to say mind your own business, but this sight is to talk about religious matters. Its you who are invading our sight, thus you must want to hear religious matters, or just stand in opposition like a terrorist in a sense. because we arent stopping talking about them in this sight. that is 1+1=2

Pointing out a different opinion is not terrorism.

Some atheists like to discuss the social consequences of religion. Some like to discuss the philosophy about religion. Some like to point out the mistakes of logic or reasoning (as they perceive them) that are common to all religions.

How is that the same as terrorism? You know, the position that anyone that disagrees needs to be frightened into submission? The *essence* of freedom of speech and religion is allowing for wide ranging discussions where people will disagree on fundamental principles.

BTW: *site* ( a location), not 'sight' (being able to see).

 

[Left Coast]

I said in a sense, that they are always standing in opposition. This is a religious sight. no one can come in here and tell us to mind our own business. It makes 0 sense to do that. If we went into an athiest sight then it would be sensible to say mind your own business, but this sight is to talk about religious matters. Its you who are invading our sight, thus you must want to hear religious matters, or just stand in opposition like a terrorist in a sense. because we arent stopping talking about them in this sight. that is 1+1=2

Atheists are just as welcome here as anyone else. This is just as much their site as it is your site. They are not "invading" anything. Please see the forum rules.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

See, I don't believe in toleration. My religion is the true religion. I'm not baiting anyone here, and I'm not trolling. I'm telling you exactly how it is for me. I hate other religions. I think people in other religions are simply deluded fools who can't see the end coming, can't read the signs of the times, and cannot understand the prophecies of the Gospels and Revelation, and of course, have no idea who or what God is.

In this day and age, it's considered just good manners to tolerate everyone. But the next thing you know, you have a drag queen Lutheran preacher reading stories to children from the pulpit. I'll bet Martin Luther never saw that one coming!

If there is no true religion, then we might as well be atheists. If there is a true religion, we better stop tolerating lies. These are the end of days.

Read entire article

Your post is ridiculously over the top and uncharitable, but I'll agree that drag at church is rather distasteful.

 

[DNB]

The act is called a performance. It's basically "living art". The strangeness of the scene itself is the artwork. The idea is to take two things that are completely opposite (the burlesque performance and the Church sermon) coexist simultaneously, think of it as a live version of a painting of war material with flowers (or the opposite). The people entertained are those who see such things since it was filmed and photographed and, of course, the public of children who look like they have fun on the pictures. You can of course not like it like you can dislike any sort of art for any reason, but don't make it into something it's not, like a vehicle for you sexism and your transphobia; nobody there is transgender as far as we know.

You have an adolescent imagination. Creative is not even an option here, you're just reckless with your interpretation????

 

[DNB]

She was not a prostitute either. A prostitute might have no say in who she has sex with because she's either destitute and thus must resort to prostitution to survive (and asking them not to sin is basically asking them to kill themselves or their children... which is also a sin) or they are slaves and thus not free to do such thing. Asking a prostitute to "sin no more" is next to impossible for her to achieve as she doesn't have that freedom. In other words, it's like asking a terminal cancer patient to just heal and be done with it.



Not really no. That's mostly a myth or at least an exaggeration mostly derived from the writings of political enemies of the Pubicans, a prestigious position, during the late Republican era of Rome where corruption was absolutely rampant in the sphere of government. At the time of Jesus, things were, strangely much better, they would degrade again though soon after. There might be some anachronism between the writers of the books and the setting of the books though about that specific point. Publicans were under close watch by the Imperial throne to void corruption as it was dangerous and accusations flew often, even if they were baseless, as is often the case in Roman politics. Never accept the words of rival politicians as granted.

My oh my, ..as far as tax collectors go, you asked the question, and i gave you a viable answer.
As far as sin is concerned, and what Jesus denounced, it doesn't matter the sin, we where referring to Jesus differentiating between the sinner and the sin, which is what you discredited him for - remember?. And nobody said anything about prostitution, REMEMBER????
Anyhow, you don't sound very serious epronovost.

 

[epronovost]

You have an adolescent imagination. Creative is not even an option here, you're just reckless with your interpretation????

I'm just telling you what a drag queen is and what is a drag queen performance and how they are supposed to work. It's not an interpretation or imagination. These are simply facts.

Drag queen - Wikipedia

Here you can read more on drag queens if you want, but they have always been attractions in burlesque theatre and like all burlesque theatre, the goal is to be provocative by skirting or breaking taboos and social norms. In the US, the Drag Queen spectacles draw a lot from minstrel shows (AKA the blackface theatre) and was originally made as a form of mockery of feminity, especially the feminity of black women. This particularly racist and sexist version of drag queens has almost completely evaporated though as its adoption by members of the LGBTQ community and by other forms of theatres and nightclub comedy shows.

Stop being so close minded about things you know nothing about and learn a little bit from those who do know a few things about them. It's okay to be wrong. You wouldn't be he first to think that somehow transgender people and drag queens are somehow related (or even one and the same) or that drag queens are member of the LGBTQ community (most are, but not all and not by necessity). These are common and understandable misconception. They are obviously wrong, but you have to know about drag queens and the LGBTQ community to know that.

 

[DNB]

So being a gay man is an overt sinner? Not conforming to social norms is being a sinner? Cultural norms are God's laws, and those who don't conform are in need of saving? Is that what you're saying?

I think you're missing the point. You aren't saved by conforming to a religious bigots' idea of what you should look like. Jesus did very much teach against judging others, and that's what that verse points to. His goal was not to turn those social rejects into Pharisees. His was the law of love, not conformity.

Get real, quick using the 'no judging' card, you haven't a clue what it means. Every single Christian is obligated to judge what is right and wrong, and who's depraved and who is not.
The cross-dressing pastor is an abomination in the Church, and in a state of utter mental confusion and disorder. He needs to fix himself and concern himself with his own salvation, which he is in dire need of, before he's put in front of others to try and guide their savific path. Christ does not approve of people who violate God's Law.

Deuteronomy 22:5 ESV
“A woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God.

 

[DNB]

I'm just telling you what a drag queen is and what is a drag queen performance and how they are supposed to work. It's not an interpretation or imagination. These are simply facts.

Drag queen - Wikipedia

Here you can read more on drag queens if you want, but they have always been attractions in burlesque theatre and like all burlesque theatre, the goal is to be provocative by skirting or breaking taboos and social norms. In the US, the Drag Queen spectacles draw a lot from minstrel shows (AKA the blackface theatre) and was originally made as a form of mockery of feminity, especially the feminity of black women. This particularly racist and sexist version of drag queens has almost completely evaporated though as its adoption by members of the LGBTQ community and by other forms of theatres and nightclub comedy shows.

Stop being so close minded about things you know nothing about and learn a little bit from those who do know a few things about them. It's okay to be wrong. You wouldn't be he first to think that somehow transgender people and drag queens are somehow related (or even one and the same) or that drag queens are member of the LGBTQ community (most are, but not all and not by necessity). These are common and understandable misconception. They are obviously wrong, but you have to know about drag queens and the LGBTQ community to know that.

Do you have issues attempting top stay on topic? I HAVEN"T A FLIPPIN' CARE ABOUT drag queens, transvestites, transgender or any flippin' thing else.
That weirdo up at the podium preaching to a congregation is an abomination. The flippin' category wasn't the issue, it's the mental stability of all the types that you mentioned that is the issue.
Get your head on straight, and don't try to equate a cross-dressing or transgender pastor with a burlesque show. You sound as bizarre and incompetent as the person that you're trying to defend.

 

[Viker]

Get real, quick using the 'no judging' card, you haven't a clue what it means. Every single Christian is obligated to judge what is right and wrong, and who's depraved and who is not.
The cross-dressing pastor is an abomination in the Church, and in a state of utter mental confusion and disorder. He needs to fix himself and concern himself with his own salvation, which he is in dire need of, before he's put in front of others to try and guide their savific path. Christ does not approve of people who violate God's Law.

Deuteronomy 22:5 ESV
“A woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God.

How does classic Israelite law factor into a modern gentile framework? Do you adhere to the Deuteronomist/Levitical code in full, or just to the parts that seem relevant to you?

 

[DNB]

How does classic Israelite law factor into a modern gentile framework? Do you adhere to the Deuteronomist/Levitical code in full, or just to the parts that seem relevant to you?

How does me explaining what Jesus' reaction would be towards a transgender or cross-dresser, have anything to do with my adherence to the Levitical Law?

 

[epronovost]

My oh my, ..as far as tax collectors go, you asked the question, and i gave you a viable answer.

No you gave an incorrect or at lest very credulous and naive reading. Sure, prostitutes and tax collectors aren't well seen people. They are pariah. Nobody likes tax collector because nobody likes to pay taxes, especially when they are poor and the poor did pay taxes back then. Progressive taxation wasn't really a thing. That doesn't mean that tax collectors were especially corrupt; at time and under some administration, corruption was rampant, but not so much during the life of Jesus. When Christianity started to organized itself and the Gospels were written though, corruption and shady monetary practices were far more common. These two events are 50 years apart though.

As far as sin is concerned, and what Jesus denounced, it doesn't matter the sin, we where referring to Jesus differentiating between the sinner and the sin, which is what you discredited him for - remember?. And nobody said anything about prostitution, REMEMBER????Anyhow, you don't sound very serious epronovost.

Actually, yes we were specifically talking about Jesus being tolerant of others by going on and dining with the very unpopular tax collectors and prostitutes. These two profession were presented specifically as "sinners" or at the very least, people of ill reputation and Jesus was not opposed to rub shoulders with them even though he certainly did not condone their profession and behavior as you demonstrated. He referred to them as "sick" and in need of spiritual healing.

I personally think that differentiating between the sin and the sinner is more often then not pure and simple pedantry. Since a prostitute and a tax collector cannot stop "sinning" then they will not perceive nor feel any difference in your behavior and since they can't feel what you feel since they aren't telepaths the subtleties of your inner feeling toward them will be lost and thus completely irrelevant to them. You might as well hate the sinner and the sin equally and they wouldn't see much of a difference. If imagined or dreamed crimes aren't real, neither are imagined or dreamed virtues.

The big exception is of course if you develop a very close relationship in which there is a shared sense of intimacy and in which such subtleties can come to the fore. Since Jesus was dining with such characters, we can see at least an attempt from him to become intimately friendly with them, but sharing diner, washing feet and hanging around such people doesn't make you intimate with them.

My rejection of Jesus as a man of especially good character, at least in his portrayal in the Gospels, is the fact that its all presented in a very superficial way. Prostitutes and tax collectors are presented in those stories as obviously despicable and detestable people, amongst the worst people to hang around with. For a normal person, it would be a shame to be seen around such company in any friendly way and having a prostitute or tax collector in your direct family is certainly even worst. This despicable nature is important as its used as a device to raises Jesus' character. I personally see this as a blatant and unjust trick. Neither tax collector nor prostitutes, especially prostitutes, should be seen as despicable and detestable. Condemning them is wrong. What is wrong is corruption, or misappropriation and misuse of public wealth; what's wrong is sexism, dire poverty and slavery under which prostitute fall victim off. The parable of Jesus dining with prostitutes and tax collectors is used to raise the character of Jesus, the protagonist, but it in doing so diminishes and harms the dignity of innocent people whose dignity is already attacked unfairly by their own society for no fault of their own; they are scapegoated for larger more complex problems.

 

[DNB]

My neighbors suspect I'm in some sinister religious group (very true). They adore my Cthulhu and Black Phillip presidential candidate posters around election time.

Speaking of intolerance, everything that you just said, and stand for is intolerable.
Am I allowed to say that on an OP that's about the justification for intolerance?

 

[Viker]

How does me explaining what Jesus' reaction would be towards a transgender or cross-dresser, have anything to do with my adherence to the Levitical Law?

"Judge not, lest ye be judged"?

"Let he who hath righteousness cast the first stone?"

And, are you a mouthpiece for Christ?

 

[Viker]

Speaking of intolerance, everything that you just said, and stand for is intolerable.
Am I allowed to say that on an OP that's about the justification for intolerance?

You have at it. I'm not thin skinned. And as long as you aren't threatening or disrespectful I have no problem with you.

 

[epronovost]

How does me explaining what Jesus' reaction would be towards a transgender or cross-dresser, have anything to do with my adherence to the Levitical Law?

Except drag queens aren't cross dresser. You might be living in some far away land as far as I am aware, but women don't dress like drag queens. They never did. Drag queens dress in a somewhat feminine coded way, but clearly completely exaggerated. They look closer to 18th century nobles in ball and celebration outfit more than anything else. If you were to observe the law on crossdressing in the Bible, you would realize that the drag queens don't exactly wear women's clothing nor are they trying to pass realistically as women, they are imitating in completely exaggerated, maybe even satirical way women for comedy purpose. The law in the Deuteronomy seems, at lest to me, concern with people trying to pass themselves for a member of another gender. I don't think it concerns theatrical performance and comedy though these activities were not exactly common to the Hebrew culture of the 8th century BC. It was more a Greek tradition at the time.