[quote=kitcap] One thing i really don’t seem to understand is this idea that their needs to be intolerance towards homosexuals simply due to religious doctrine. Sure, I understand that their are numerous biblical interpretations which have entrenched the divide, but it flies in the face of perhaps the most important tenant of Christianity. If God is all powerful, and all loving (which is the God I was raised to embrace), then why would we be intolerant of others? There are numerous references of Jesus Christ practicing tolerance, does it not follow that we should follow his lead?I am what you would described as Christian Lite, so I do not pretend to be an expert on what the bible does or does not tell us. To be honest, I believe in evolution, we didn’t walk the earth with the dinosaurs 4000 years ago and the earth is round (yes I am being facetious), but there are many truths and much wisdom found in the bible (as well as other religious doctrines). As for homosexuals being creepy? I am sure some are… so are some heterosexuals, . Do I understand homosexuality… I can’t say that I do… but I understand the utter contempt shown toward the gay population even less. Two consenting adults are not hurting anyone, and these people have far more to their identity than their sexual preference. This world would be a whole lot better place with a little tolerance shown to one another, I always thought that was one of the things that Jesus tried to teach us through his many examples of sacrifice and forgiveness. I guess I try to live my life where I save my contempt for those who deserve it, such as child molesters, violent criminals, lying politicians or able body people who park in handicap spaces. It may not work for everyone, but it is easier to live my life without having to be in constant judgement of others…

[/quote]



Except for the gays will burn in hell part…I’m not really religious…but just sayin…

Windy - Your use of the word retarded and the context you continue to put it in disqualifies of all your points. How can you possibly use that word ?

Windy - Your use of the word retarded and the context you continue to put it in disqualifies of all your points. How can you possibly use that word ?

Windy

–noun



4.     Retard

a.     a person who is stupid, obtuse, or ineffective in some way: a hopeless social retard.

One thing i really don’t seem to understand is this idea that their needs to be intolerance towards homosexuals simply due to religious doctrine. Sure, I understand that their are numerous biblical interpretations which have entrenched the divide, but it flies in the face of perhaps the most important tenant of Christianity. If God is all powerful, and all loving (which is the God I was raised to embrace), then why would we be intolerant of others? There are numerous references of Jesus Christ practicing tolerance, does it not follow that we should follow his lead?
I am what you would described as Christian Lite, so I do not pretend to be an expert on what the bible does or does not tell us. To be honest, I believe in evolution, we didn’t walk the earth with the dinosaurs 4000 years ago and the earth is round (yes I am being facetious), but there are many truths and much wisdom found in the bible (as well as other religious doctrines).

As for homosexuals being creepy? I am sure some are… so are some heterosexuals, . Do I understand homosexuality… I can’t say that I do… but I understand the utter contempt shown toward the gay population even less. Two consenting adults are not hurting anyone, and these people have far more to their identity than their sexual preference.

This world would be a whole lot better place with a little tolerance shown to one another, I always thought that was one of the things that Jesus tried to teach us through his many examples of sacrifice and forgiveness. I guess I try to live my life where I save my contempt for those who deserve it, such as child molesters, violent criminals, lying politicians or able body people who park in handicap spaces. It may not work for everyone, but it is easier to live my life without having to be in constant judgement of others…

[quote=Ron 14] Windy - Your use of the word retarded and the context you continue to put it in disqualifies of all your points. How can you possibly use that word ?[/quote]

Retarded
–noun

4.     Slang
a.     a person who is stupid, obtuse, or ineffective in some way: a hopeless social retard.

Using the word retard does not mean that i am in anyway being an asshole to handicapped people. There are retarded people (Idiots) and Handicapped people. Wether or not you agree with my use of the word “retard” or not, i used it in very good context. Good job of trying to take a stab at me though…funny thing though. I was taking up for Spiff on his beliefs and you agreed with him on almost everything so in a way i was defending you.…eh, oh well…someone snap your fingers and bring back Ron’s attention to the convo instead of me…

Evolution may be a theory…but it is also repeatable in a laboratory.

Furthermore, the method by which the theory of evolution was established is the same method used to invent laptops, cell phones, put men on the moon, and make starbucks coffee so yummy!

Since I’m a betting man, I bet the theory of evolution is correct.
And if it makes you happy, I will also say that God blah, blah, blah…

[quote=Still@jones] Evolution may be a theory…but it is also repeatable in a laboratory. Furthermore, the method by which the theory of evolution was established is the same method used to invent laptops, cell phones, put men on the moon, and make starbucks coffee so yummy! Since I’m a betting man, I bet the theory of evolution is correct. And if it makes you happy, I will also say that God blah, blah, blah…

[/quote]



Higgs-Bosun (more big-bang but also applies to makeup of matter)? Missing link?



The problem with the evolutionary theory is that it is so all-encompassing - difficult to prove completely until you have all of the pieces.



But like I said before, evolution and intelligent design are not mutually exclusive. And that is the argument.



Even Darwin said this:



“life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one”. 2nd edition, On the Origin of Species.

The theory of evolution has not and will not be proven because life cannot be started chemically. Only one phase of the seven theories needed to prove the theory seems to be provable and that is Micro evolution. We have had the theory of evolution( the end result) for over 150 years, but we can’t prove the beginning phase, or any of the other six phases. The bible has been proven to be true over and over even with many attempts to disprove it, so at least the version outlined in the bible has the most credibility of any that is known now. I think that the fact that the  best efforts of many to disprove it have failed for good reason. 

[quote=Primo]You advocate for tolerance, then in the next breath list people who don’t deserve tolerance.  Didn’t Jesus show tolerance towards criminals?  According to your logic, you should also.  Where is the tolerance for Spiff and his beliefs?  Why has it become evil to speak out against any minority group, while it is completely acceptable to supress the opinions of the majority in the name of tolerance? 

[quote=MR.D] The theory of evolution has not and will not be proven because life cannot be started chemically. Only one phase of the seven theories needed to prove the theory seems to be provable and that is Micro evolution. We have had the theory of evolution( the end result) for over 150 years, but we can’t prove the beginning phase, or any of the other six phases. The bible has been proven to be true over and over even with many attempts to disprove it, so at least the version outlined in the bible has the most credibility of any that is known now. I think that the fact that the best efforts of many to disprove it have failed for good reason.

[/quote]



The bible has been proven over and over? In what way?



Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed? Moses parting the Red Sea?



The bible is allegory. Not to mention that the edition most people use is the King James version which is an inaccurate translation.



The reason life cannot be chemically started is simply a time factor. RNA can be created in the lab. The time necessary to create life is not within the realm of present-day science.



Anyway, things do evolve. There is evidence of that. Think about vestigial organs. Your appendix, frontal sinuses, etc.

[quote=Ronnie Dobbs]

We all have our beliefs, but talking crap on a forum and bashing Spiff for his beiefs just makes you retarded. [/quote]



Bashing people for their beliefs on forums is purpose of the forums. Make a comment, be prepared to be taken to task for it and defend it. He doesn’t get a pass because it’s about religion or his thoughts on gays or Darwin or whether the Mets should have signed Jason Bay.

[quote=kitcap] [quote=Primo]You advocate for tolerance, then in the next breath list people who don’t deserve tolerance.  Didn’t Jesus show tolerance towards criminals?  According to your logic, you should also.  Where is the tolerance for Spiff and his beliefs?  Why has it become evil to speak out against any minority group, while it is completely acceptable to supress the opinions of the majority in the name of tolerance? 

[quote=MR.D] The theory of evolution has not and will not be proven because life cannot be started chemically. Only one phase of the seven theories needed to prove the theory seems to be provable and that is Micro evolution. We have had the theory of evolution( the end result) for over 150 years, but we can’t prove the beginning phase, or any of the other six phases. The bible has been proven to be true over and over even with many attempts to disprove it, so at least the version outlined in the bible has the most credibility of any that is known now. I think that the fact that the best efforts of many to disprove it have failed for good reason.

[/quote]



Which version? Because there are over 100 MAN MADE books…in tons of different languages and all of them having different content…Hmm…better pick the right one to follow, or you’re going to hell…lol…



As far as your evolution statement. Blah----



"The term ‘microevolution’ has recently become popular among those who hold to the Intelligent Design theory, and in particular among young Earth creationists. The claim that microevolution is qualitatively different from macroevolution is fallacious, as the main difference between the two processes is that one occurs within a few generations, whilst the other takes place over thousands of years (i.e. a quantitative difference). Essentially they describe the same process.



The attempt to differentiate between microevolution and macroevolution is considered to have no scientific basis by any mainstream scientific organization, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Contrary to belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level (“macroevolution”, i.e. speciation in a specific case) has indeed been observed and documented by scientists on many occasions.]"



hmmm…Not Proven?

Primo, you are exactly right. The majority must stand for the beliefs that our country was founded on, which not only is religious, but we must regain control of our government which now controls us. They are out of control and need to be put back into the position of answering to the public. It is ridiculous to see Reid promising our money to senators to obtain a vote on a bill before the senate. I think he should be charged for criminal activity.

[quote=MR.D]Primo, you are exactly right. The majority must stand for the beliefs that our country was founded on, which not only is religious, but we must regain control of our government which now controls us. They are out of control and need to be put back into the position of answering to the public. It is ridiculous to see Reid promising our money to senators to obtain a vote on a bill before the senate. I think he should be charged for criminal activity.
[/quote]
This post is silly…

Windy-Which version? Because there are over 100 MAN MADE books...in tons of different languages and all of them having different content...Hmm...better pick the right one to follow, or you're going to hell....lol...

[quote=Primo]At what point does tolerance of others beliefs subjugate (sp?) our own beliefs to the point where having beliefs is no longer warranted?  Why is it terrible for Spiff to stand up for his beliefs, and honorable for someone else’s beliefs (in this case tolerance of homosexuality) to be tolerated?  They don’t say the Pledge of Allegiance in school anymore because of two words, “Under God”.  Yet the majority of people believe in God and have no problem with these words.  We have transformed the way we act and the things we say to make them conform to the lowest possible denominator.  Our children cannot say the Pledge, yet (only using as an example because it is the topic of this thread) gay men can parade in the streets wearing nothing but a leather thong.  Why?[/quote]

Tolerance does not mean intolerance of the majority. Just for the record, as state above, I never said Spiff’s view is ‘so terrible’. He is entitled to his faith, just like a consenting adult is entitled to select their own partner. Why do we need to be intolerant of others in order to stand up for our own beliefs? I dont undrstand. Are the two mutually exclusive?

I would like to stay on point though, and not go off focus on the Pledge, or prayer in school, or creationism vs evolution, etc. We can criss cross this conversation into a never ending myriad of topics, so for the sake of simplicity, and relavence, why does it matter to you if gay men wish to parade in the streets? I suppose if they are wearing something obsence, then it would be inappropriate and you could take offense. But that could be said for a number of things. There is a gay parade in our city every year, and while there are some rather flamboyant costumes, nothing comes to mind which borders on public indecency. In fact, there are more straight people in attendence than gay, as the whole event is one of the cities more entertaining events in the summer. At the end of the day, these sort of events help to promote goodwill within the community, much like various cultural festivals. They may take place in a public venue, but are financed and organized privately. I really do not see the harm…

[quote=Primo]At what point does tolerance of others beliefs subjugate (sp?) our own beliefs to the point where having beliefs is no longer warranted?  Why is it terrible for Spiff to stand up for his beliefs, and honorable for someone else’s beliefs (in this case tolerance of homosexuality) to be tolerated?  They don’t say the Pledge of Allegiance in school anymore because of two words, “Under God”.  Yet the majority of people believe in God and have no problem with these words.  We have transformed the way we act and the things we say to make them conform to the lowest possible denominator.  Our children cannot say the Pledge, yet (only using as an example because it is the topic of this thread) gay men can parade in the streets wearing nothing but a leather thong.  Why?[/quote]

Tolerance does not mean intolerance of the majority. Just for the record, as state above, I never said Spiff’s view is ‘so terrible’. He is entitled to his faith, just like a consenting adult is entitled to select their own partner. Why do we need to be intolerant of others in order to stand up for our own beliefs? I dont undrstand. Are the two mutually exclusive?

I would like to stay on point though, and not go off focus on the Pledge, or prayer in school, or creationism vs evolution, etc. We can criss cross this conversation into a never ending myriad of topics, so for the sake of simplicity, and relavence, why does it matter to you if gay men wish to parade in the streets? I suppose if they are wearing something obsence, then it would be inappropriate and you could take offense. But that could be said for a number of things. There is a gay parade in our city every year, and while there are some rather flamboyant costumes, nothing comes to mind which borders on public indecency. In fact, there are more straight people in attendence than gay, as the whole event is one of the cities more entertaining events in the summer. At the end of the day, these sort of events help to promote goodwill within the community, much like various cultural festivals. They may take place in a public venue, but are financed and organized privately. I really do not see the harm…

[quote=Primo]You have not been paying attention to society.  Intolerance vs. the majority is widely accepted.  Simply read this thread.  Intolerance vs. a “protected class” is bashed.  Most people (majority) have no problem with the Pledge, yet it is kept out of schools.  A minority of people think a gay pride parade is good use of an afternoon, yet if it were to be stopped, watch the lawsuits flood in.[/quote]

So… in order for the majority to be satiated, the minority need to be squashed? I believe that was what Mills called ‘tyranny of the majority’. What does the Pledge in school has to do with Gay Parades? I believe the argument against the Pledge was the need to separate church and state. That is a different topic entirely. There is nothing in society which stops you from doing the Pledge, or organizing a public forum where a group of people do the Pledge of Allegiance. Just like there is no movement to organize a gay parade in the public schools. Tolerance… Why is there a problem if a private group organize a parade? I thought Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness were two of the main tenants of the Declaration of Independence?