Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

More From The Bigoted Left!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • More From The Bigoted Left!

    I love how the left leads the way by modeling tolerance!

    No college has taken more flak after running afoul of the gay rights movement than Gordon College, but it turns out the small Christian institution in Wenham, Massachusetts, also has some supporters.

    One of them is Lori D'Amico, a parent in Lynn, Massachusetts, who submitted petition signatures last week to require the city’s school district to hold another hearing on its vote to bar Gordon undergraduates from serving as student teachers in the Lynn system.

    Another is Peter Kirsanow, a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, who fired off a letter to the Lynn mayor last month warning her that the school committee had violated the First Amendment by discriminating against Gordon College students based on their religion.

    The uproar was spurred by Gordon President D. Michael Lindsay’s joining a July letter from religious leaders to President Obama, asking him to carve out a general religious exemption from an executive order banning federal contractors from discriminating based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

    Critics have blasted the request as proof that Gordon condones discrimination, but Mr. Kirsanow disagreed.

    “As noted above, no one has claimed that a Gordon College student teacher has discriminated against a Lynn public school student on the basis of their sexual orientation, or even made a comment about sexual orientation,” he said in his letter.



    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...#ixzz3WpfijsAE
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

  • #2
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    asking him to carve out a general religious exemption from an executive order banning federal contractors from discriminating based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
    And yet again religious people want to be exempted from having to behave morally.

    "No, no, we're allowed to have slaves because the Bible says so..."
    "No, no, we're allowed to have segregation because the Bible says so..."
    "No, no, we're allowed to discriminate against gays because the Bible says so..."

    I think the bible says something about how the rest of society regards religious people when they see them taking a pass on morals:
    "You who boast in the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? As it is written: “God’s name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.”"
    By seeking a religious exemption from what everyone else sees as moral laws, religious people bring their religions into disrepute.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Starlight View Post
      And yet again religious people want to be exempted from having to behave morally.

      "No, no, we're allowed to have slaves because the Bible says so..."
      "No, no, we're allowed to have segregation because the Bible says so..."
      "No, no, we're allowed to discriminate against gays because the Bible says so..."

      I think the bible says something about how the rest of society regards religious people when they see them taking a pass on morals:
      "You who boast in the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? As it is written: “God’s name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.”"
      By seeking a religious exemption from what everyone else sees as moral laws, religious people bring their religions into disrepute.
      What are you taking about? The student teachers involved did not beak any laws.
      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Starlight View Post
        And yet again religious people want to be exempted from having to behave morally.

        "No, no, we're allowed to have slaves because the Bible says so..."
        "No, no, we're allowed to have segregation because the Bible says so..."
        "No, no, we're allowed to discriminate against gays because the Bible says so..."

        I think the bible says something about how the rest of society regards religious people when they see them taking a pass on morals:
        "You who boast in the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? As it is written: “God’s name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.”"
        By seeking a religious exemption from what everyone else sees as moral laws, religious people bring their religions into disrepute.
        Originally posted by Starlight View Post


        It's hilarious cos it's true.

        TWeb: The discussion forums owned and operated by trolls.


        Starlight, the hypocrite, well at work!

        Complains about tWeb being 'owned and operated by trolls'.Show's he's the biggest hypocrite and troll on here, by posting a trolling post that is so divorced from reality, that you wonder if the person who posted it is mentally ill, an idiot, or both.



        I wonder if the idiot is aware that Christians were the biggest pushers against slavery, from the 16th century to the 19th century. I also wonder if the moron can actually quote a single Christian that says that segregation was 'backed in the Bible' because I sure haven't read that one anywhere, but asking him to back up his assertions is pointless. I also love his biggest hypocrite move in which he whines about 'discrimination against gays' and ignores his own 'discrimination against Christians'. Looks like he just doesn't know when to shut up and prefers to show he's the biggest troll on here that is attempt to talk about thing his tiny mind is incapable of understanding.
        Last edited by lilpixieofterror; 04-11-2015, 09:13 AM.
        "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
        GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
          I wonder if the idiot is aware that Christians were the biggest pushers against slavery, from the 16th century to the 19th century.
          Starlight probably is aware. He's probably also aware that the existence of some Christians who opposed slavery does not magically cancel out the fact that many other Christians supported slavery. Thus, his point--that religious people supported slavery--remains true. It'd be one thing if he said "A religion like Christianity inherently produces people who support slavery," but, well, that's not what he said. He said something non-controversial and irrefutable. Now, I'm not stating that the following necessarily applies to you, but...while it may be tempting to act upon a knee-jerk response when someone says something negative about Christians/Christianity, the right thing to do when the negative statement is actually true is to humbly admit it and not attempt to deny history or sugarcoat that negative truth.

          I also wonder if the moron can actually quote a single Christian that says that segregation was 'backed in the Bible' because I sure haven't read that one anywhere
          In "Take Your Choice: Separation or Mongrelization," Theodore Bilbo writes:

          Those who are attempting to implant the doctrine of social equality of the races throughout this land and seeking to promote the intermarriage of the races must indeed think that Almighty God, the Creator of the heavens and the earth, made a mistake, or perhaps played a practical joke, when He made the skin color of the Negro race black. And these social equality advocates would now have the white man share his blood with the Negro in order that the black man may become bleached and the white man lost in the intermingling process. Would those who preach this infamous doctrine have us believe that they would thus improve on the handiwork of God ? "And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so." (l3)

          There are those who point out that Noah's three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, were the fathers of three great divisions of mankind. And this gives grounds for the argument that Canaan, son of Ham who was cursed, was the father of the black race. We quote the following verses from Genesis and leave the reader to his own conclusion as to what constituted the curse of Canaan:

          And he said, Cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
          And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

          God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant
          . (14)

          It should also be noted that Abraham and his sons had no fear of God's wrath when they practiced "discrimination" in the selection of wives. Surely, God bestowed his blessings and approved his household when He said to Abraham: "Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward: For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed forever. And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth then shall thy seed also be numbered." (l5) Later, we find these verses in the Holy Scripture which we leave to the reader's interpretation:
          And Isaac called Jacob, and blessed him, and charged him, and said unto him, Thou shalt not take a wife of the daughters of Canaan.
          When Esau saw that Isaac had blessed Jacob, and sent him away to Padan-aram, to take him a wife from thence; and that as he had blessed him he gave him a charge, saying, Thou shalt not take a wife of the daughters of Canaan;

          And Esau seeing that the daughters of Canaan pleased not Isaac his father:

          Then went Esau unto Ishmael, and took . . . the sister of Nebajoth, to be his wife
          .

          The fact and permanency of race have been recognized throughout the ages. "Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots?" asked the prophet Jeremiah. (l7) The answer is quite evident to every thinking person. The Negro or any other race cannot change the skin color, the hair texture, or any of the other characteristics of race as long as racial integrity is maintained. The only way that modification can be brought about is by the crossing of different races, and we have already seen that this is in direct defiance with the laws of God. Each race should remain true to itself and develop to the highest and noblest status of which it is capable. Racial pride should be instilled in the youth of all races.


          Besides, even if that section didn't exist, it's fair to infer that devout Christians probably wouldn't support something unless they did think there was Biblical backing for it.

          but asking him to back up his assertions is pointless.
          You didn't ask him to back it up (although personally I thought it was common knowledge that some Christians did attempt to justify segregation and slavery on the basis of religious scriptures, and that it didn't need to be backed up here). You seem to be assuming that he wouldn't support his well-known claims if he was asked.

          I also love his biggest hypocrite move in which he whines about 'discrimination against gays' and ignores his own 'discrimination against Christians'.
          But based on the threads in which he's recently posted, the context strongly suggests that by "discrimination against gays" he's referring to recent incidents in which businesses attempted to refuse to provide service to gay people while providing those same services to straight people. There doesn't appear to be any evidence that he's engaged in any discriminatory behavior towards Christians. Subsequently, it's difficult to see where exactly this alleged "hypocrisy" lies here.

          Looks like he just doesn't know when to shut up and prefers to show he's the biggest troll on here that is attempt to talk about thing his tiny mind is incapable of understanding.
          There's a hint of sardonicism in his tone, but (1) so? and 2) his main claims aren't factually wrong, and thus it seems unwarranted to insultingly characterize him as a troll or tiny-minded. I guess you could say he's being unfair when he characterizes the situation as "religious people want to be exempted from having to behave morally," since most religious people who engage in discrimination are probably just trying to do what they honestly believe is righteous, rather than consciously wondering "Hmm, I really want to behave immorally today. I wonder what loopholes I can find to act that way." But...you could've just said that, instead of embarking on this spiteful, gratuitously insulting, wrongfully accusatory rant.
          Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17

          I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by fm93 View Post
            Starlight probably is aware. He's probably also aware that the existence of some Christians who opposed slavery does not magically cancel out the fact that many other Christians supported slavery. Thus, his point--that religious people supported slavery--remains true. It'd be one thing if he said "A religion like Christianity inherently produces people who support slavery," but, well, that's not what he said. He said something non-controversial and irrefutable.
            I think JP Holding has the right approach here. In his e-book on slavery, he freely admits that Christians widely supported slavery citing the Bible. He also asserts that many did just the opposite, and goes on to argue why he thinks their arguments were fallacious.
            "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
              I think JP Holding has the right approach here. In his e-book on slavery, he freely admits that Christians widely supported slavery citing the Bible. He also asserts that many did just the opposite, and goes on to argue why he thinks their arguments were fallacious.
              And I completely agree with that approach. I just feel that some Christians have this unfortunate tendency to respond to such objections by sugarcoating the bad parts or painting a one-sided picture by focusing only on the good parts. That might make fellow believers feel better, but it's basically useless to a skeptic--no one's going to go "Oh, so only about 60% of Christians supported something morally hideous like slavery, instead of 100%. That completely changes everything. Praise God and the Church."
              Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17

              I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer

              Comment


              • #8
                Most people engaged in slavery at some point in history. Christians are not anything special in this regard and atheists certainly have no right to complain considering the recent history of atheist slavery in communist countries. The only thing Christianity stands out in is the colossal effort it put in wiping it out.

                All this is academic of course, from an atheist perspective it makes zero sense to object to slavery and Starlight just signals the kind of typical atheist weakness that would have gotten him wiped out if his slavery loving ancestors hadn't given him enough of a head start that he doesn't have to worry about these things (for now).
                "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                  I think JP Holding has the right approach here. In his e-book on slavery, he freely admits that Christians widely supported slavery citing the Bible. He also asserts that many did just the opposite, and goes on to argue why he thinks their arguments were fallacious.


                  Oh, and fm93, I seem to remember that Starlight's basically said that Christianity is inherently evil(not the exact words, something like "overall negative effect on society"). I can't seem to find it with the search function on here though. So, lpot's response as if Starlight had said that in the previous post is understandable with that background IMO.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by fm93 View Post
                    And I completely agree with that approach. I just feel that some Christians have this unfortunate tendency to respond to such objections by sugarcoating the bad parts or painting a one-sided picture by focusing only on the good parts. That might make fellow believers feel better, but it's basically useless to a skeptic--no one's going to go "Oh, so only about 60% of Christians supported something morally hideous like slavery, instead of 100%. That completely changes everything. Praise God and the Church."
                    Similarly, I have a feeling of ambivalence about the common apologetics about the Crusades. I think there is a strong case to be made that the popular narrative is not as damning toward Christians as the reality; but the common implication that follows is that everything was perfectly fine, which just isn't the case.

                    To be honest, since this sort of thing doesn't directly affect the truth claims of Christianity, I have a hard time seeing it as a major apologetics issue, but that's just the way I think.
                    "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                      Similarly, I have a feeling of ambivalence about the common apologetics about the Crusades. I think there is a strong case to be made that the popular narrative is not as damning toward Christians as the reality; but the common implication that follows is that everything was perfectly fine, which just isn't the case.

                      Out of all the defenses I have read, all of them admit that they were bad. They also point out that Christians not living according to Jesus' teachings aren't something that's wrong with Christianity, but with humanity.

                      To be honest, since this sort of thing doesn't directly affect the truth claims of Christianity, I have a hard time seeing it as a major apologetics issue, but that's just the way I think.
                      That's actually the major point of most Crusades defenses I've seen.

                      Well, that, and people are currently being dishonest with the history.

                      This all reminds me of a quote I saw once "Not going to church because of hypocrites is like not going to the hospital because of sick people".

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post

                        Out of all the defenses I have read, all of them admit that they were bad. They also point out that Christians not living according to Jesus' teachings aren't something that's wrong with Christianity, but with humanity.
                        Apologists generally won't say that, but I sensed that was the attitude some ordinary people were taking when Obama made his comments a few weeks ago about the Crusades.
                        "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                          Apologists generally won't say that, but I sensed that was the attitude some ordinary people were taking when Obama made his comments a few weeks ago about the Crusades.
                          You did say "common apologetics". So, I was thinking that this was something you'd seen more from those in apologetics.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            BTW I misworded my earlier post; JP Holding does not think that the Bible supports American-style slavery.
                            "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
                              I seem to remember that Starlight's basically said that Christianity is inherently evil(not the exact words, something like "overall negative effect on society").
                              I think that in the modern world, Christianity is a net negative moral force in our society. In all the major civil rights issues / moral issues of the last 250 years or so, the people on the wrong side of the issue have been primarily Christians who were zealous in their wrongness due to biblical beliefs.

                              I'm not denying that there haven't been Christians on the right side of issues also, however on the balance, Christianity has served to slow progress on these issues and provided reasons and incentives for those on the wrong side of the issues by offering them the convenient justifications of "the bible says" and "God says" rather than requiring that they actually think about their positions and the impact they were having on others. For many on the wrong side of issues, their primary reason for being on that side has been their Christianity and their conviction that that is the correct side in the eyes of God.

                              We see this most recently and clearly manifesting in the gay rights movements, where Christians have constituted the vast majority of those on the wrong side of the issues in the Western world. And a very high percentage of Christians were initially on the wrong side of the issues. (Although that is rapidly changing, as increasing numbers swap sides) But historically a similar trend can be seen in other civil rights movements: Those on the wrong side of the issue were absolutely convinced that they had a biblical/divine mandate for their position and that served to prevent progress. (eg this speech in 1960 defending segregation as Biblical by Bob Jones at Bob Jones University in South Carolina)

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by CivilDiscourse, Yesterday, 08:17 AM
                              2 responses
                              41 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by LiconaFan97, 10-23-2020, 04:56 PM
                              29 responses
                              186 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Starlight  
                              Started by Juvenal, 10-23-2020, 11:08 AM
                              10 responses
                              101 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Juvenal
                              by Juvenal
                               
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 10-23-2020, 08:52 AM
                              6 responses
                              64 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by Ronson, 10-22-2020, 10:59 PM
                              67 responses
                              511 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post seanD
                              by seanD
                               
                              Working...
                              X