Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The caption alone is ridiculous and there is soooooooo much that can be said to debunk the nonsense (which I am sure some of you will do), but is it just me that if I close my eyes and listen to both of these men, it sounds like the "Christian" pastor is the gay one? Yes, I do realize not ALL gay people sound anything like he does and that there are MANY gay people you could never detect from the way they carry themselves.
"Slavery was not condoned in the Bible," but there are instructions on the proper administration of it? A DEScription of a marriage suddenly becomes a PREscription for it and a PROscription of sany other form? "God's Word does not change," and neither does someone's understanding of it when they realize they got it wrong apparently.
Yes, that "Christian pastor" destroyed alright, but what he destroyed was the truth.
"Slavery was not condoned in the Bible,"God's Word does not change.
That's VERY debatable but not for this topic.
Not really, yet it is written man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceedeth from the LORD's mouth doth man live.
Of course it is written in Exodus 21:1-2;
1 Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them.
2 "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing."
I can only imagine the expression on the Hebrews faces when they heard that, for out of a man's heart he speaks.
However, considering the following passage in Exodus, 21:16, "And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.", I doubt either the stickman or the strawman know who John was speaking of in John 1:26.
1) The straight pastor (they're both Christian pastors) claims that 'those who seek tolerance are the least tolerant of people like us.' The problem with this is the question of tolerance of intolerance. Does being tolerant require us to accept intolerance? I say no. Tolerant people should be intolerant of intolerance. I don't necessarily have a problem with people who are not on board with gay marriage, but to mistreat gay people just for being gay is wrong. I'll tolerate the view that marriage should serve a specific utility and therefor works best as a man and a woman; I will not tolerate people mistreating gay people.
2) He says that marriage is defined in the Bible by Jesus' observation that man leaves his mother and father to be with a woman. Now, the term marriage is not actually specified. It's just the recipe for the common practice of marriage. He also says slavery is not condoned. Now, this is technically true. Nothing in the Bible says specifically that slavery is acceptable. But it does go into detail about when it's acceptable to have a slave and who it may be. It's a recipe.
Now here's where the big contradiction becomes notable. Marriage is never explicitly defined in the Bible, just the concept of a man and woman coming together. He says this is enough to justify his view of marriage. Yet despite slavery also not specifically being condoned, much like marriage, it has a concept of how it is to work. Is this not the same thing? Neither are given explicit explanation, but both are described. Why does this allow the pastor to say marriage is defined but slavery is not, and also say that God contradicts himself, as this man claims that God is on his side. By this definition, God would have to be contradicting himself.
The straight pastor (they're both Christian pastors) claims that 'those who seek tolerance are the least tolerant of people like us.' The problem with this is the question of tolerance of intolerance. Does being tolerant require us to accept intolerance? I say no. Tolerant people should be intolerant of intolerance.
I have to say that there's a sort of "intolerance card" that gets played as a deflecting stratagem by people who want to (1) avoid charges of bigotry and (2) project their own bigotry onto the very persons the are bigoted against.
The same thing happens when an atheist points out logical holes in theist arguments or insists that a theist take responsibility for burden of proof. Liberal theists will say that this is "intolerant" behavior. Conservative theists will call it "hateful", "disrespectful", "nasty", "insulting", or just outright label it persecution. Both groups have been observed to call this "fundamentalist". When in fact all it is, is (1) not agreeing and (2) being willing to say so, and why, and (3) not being cowed by the umbrage taken to (1) and (2).
In both the case of a heterosexual pushing back against homosexuals and theists pushing back against atheists, the mere existence of the Other is an assault to the composure and comfort and reality narrative of the objector ... and so certainly the Other being in any way "loud and proud" about who / what they are / what they believe is even worse, and often responded to as if it were an actual existential threat. Which, in at least a symbolic sense, it actually IS. Because if you are invested in seeing minority sexual orientation ("deviance") or unbelief as evil, the mere existence, much less self-assuredness and articulateness, of these Others, and their degree of acceptance or success in life, is seen to diminish the validity and significance of your own life. You could NEVER admit the Other's legitimacy because it reduces your own legitimacy.
I almost never buy charges of intolerance against a majority, hegemonous group, charges of "reverse racism" by a minority race, and the like. Even when there is some basis for it in a particular case, it's usually just an immature response to the REAL transgression that started the whole thing.
I feel cheated. I wanted to see a pastor vaporize some other pastor, like point a finger at him, shout some dramatic invocation, and then the guy gets obliterated by a bolt of lightning. Mods need to change the thread title, damn it...
"God's Word does not change," and neither does someone's understanding of it when they realize they got it wrong apparently.
That's VERY debatable but not for this topic.
I disagree. While there are other equivocations that apply to these matters (some outlined above), the most significant one in the context of Christian rhetoric is that, despite their claims to the contrary, Christianity is a revision of the word of God that they themselves tacitly acknowledge existed previously. Their rationalization for their denials seek to claim the right to add on "an Amendment clause" (i.e., "I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them"), but deny that right to others. What they cannot bring themselves to admit is that the notion of Jesus, all by itself, justifies ongoing revelation. Their insistence on using their own interpretations to excuse the transgressions of preexisting law, by itself, grants the right of interpretation to others, even if the interpretations of those others are diametrically opposed to the Christians' preferred interpretations.
So even before their rhetoric is attacked from within the boundaries of the discussion set forth in Christian lore, it is already debunked on a more comprehensive and more substantive foundation.
I disagree. While there are other equivocations that apply to these matters (some outlined above), the most significant one in the context of Christian rhetoric is that, despite their claims to the contrary, Christianity is a revision of the word of God that they themselves tacitly acknowledge existed previously. Their rationalization for their denials seek to claim the right to add on "an Amendment clause" (i.e., "I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them"), but deny that right to others. What they cannot bring themselves to admit is that the notion of Jesus, all by itself, justifies ongoing revelation. Their insistence on using their own interpretations to excuse the transgressions of preexisting law, by itself, grants the right of interpretation to others, even if the interpretations of those others are diametrically opposed to the Christians' preferred interpretations.
So even before their rhetoric is attacked from within the boundaries of the discussion set forth in Christian lore, it is already debunked on a more comprehensive and more substantive foundation.
I agree.
A practical problem for those who fancy themselves the keepers / protectors of a "faith delivered once and for all" is that if revelation is ongoing then they don't get to have all that power and authority to determine orthodoxy and dogma and to even really to define who belongs to the flock and who doesn't (since fidelity to fixed dogma is no longer available as an easy way to judge people). Revelation becomes an ongoing process and since no one is hearing a booming voice from the heavens it becomes an ongoing dialogue (or really, debate) rather like the ongoing process of lawmaking in a legislative body.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
