Homosexuals preach tolerance like a religious mantra. Yet I have to wonder if they'd like to see "tolerance" practiced by Christians and conservatives the way they model "tolerance." (See video below)
Just in the last week, we've seen the apostles of tolerance talk about murder and other violence against people for exercising their right to vote.
We've also seen the apostles of tolerance grab a cross out of an old lady's hand an stomp on it, then shout down the lady and the reporter trying to interview the lady.
A couple of weeks before that we saw the apostles of tolerance stealing and vandalizing private property.
And this past weekend, homosexual activists, er, apostles of tolerance went to a church in Lansing, Michigan and disrupted the services. The infiltrated the service, handed out homosexual propaganda, threw condoms around the church, hung up an obscene banner and showed a couple of lesbians making out. They also shouted "Jesus was gay" and hurled profanities.
Maybe it's just me, but if I were pressed to make a judgment call (as icky as such things are to some folks), after thinking about it real hard, I'd have to say that repeating God's condemnation of homosexuality is just a little more tolerant than going onto another group's private property, insulting them and their deepest religious beliefs, disrupting their meeting and acting in a lewd manner with the specific intent of insulting them.
But then, I know that's one of those icky judgments that non-religious people think religious people aren't supposed to make, based on religious text that they don't believe in.
But then, aren't these homosexual activists making a judgment when they make that determination? Aren't they being intolerant of someone else?
Hmmm. Maybe homosexual activists don't really believe in tolerance after all.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
The Intolerance of the Tolerant: The Next Chapter
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
well, they believe in tolerence as long as it benefits them.
Christians have practiced tolerance like the homosexual demonstrators, it was called the crusades.
Good one. :-) Go back 1,000 years to deflect attention from the hypocrisy of the apostles of tolerance last weekend.
If you remember your history, the Crusades were fought to liberate the Holy Land from the Muslims who conquered it from the Christians. Both events, incidentally, were warfare and not subject to the usual standards of "tolerance" expected between individual people...on any level.
I am wondering why no protests occur at muslim mosques. Perhaps because christians today attempt to avoid violence and the protesters are safe.
to protest a mosque would invite death.
interesting.
I'm glad Christians don't burn people alive anymore.
The way homosexual activists have been acting lately, I hope they don't start.
Oh don't worry. Unlike Christians, homosexuals have never used a book to justify the torture and execution of people who pose a threat to their fairytale. There's really no tolerance quite like Christian tolerance!
Aside from the fact that incidents of torture from the "Christian" community in the ancient past were in contradiction to what is taught in that "book," it would seem you agree that some homosexual activists need even less justification to engage in bad behavior.
That famed homosexual "tolerance" that's been shoveled at society for the last decade or two is finally being revealed for the manure some of us always knew it was.
I love it when the truth is finally revealed publicly. No wonder Christ said the truth would set us free!
Alright, justify all you want. No matter what you say or how many quotation marks you put around all the "Christians" who had it wrong, it doesn't change the fact that infinitely more deaths can be directly attributed to the Bible than to "Daddy's Roommate" or the Advocate magazine. That's the legacy that "tolerant" Christians have blessed the human race with.
And the Christians who put witches, homosexuals, heretics, and basically anyone they didn't like to death all those years ago had one thing in common with you: they believed without a doubt that the Christians who came before them were wrong. And in 100 years, you can bet that someone will put quotation marks around "Christian" when they describe you too.
Anonymous 1:07, here are a few things to ponder.
1. Can you point out any innocent people who were killed in accordance with Biblical doctrine?
2. Even if any have (which I can save you time searching the Scriptures right now by telling you there haven't), specifically how would such a wrong manage to render homosexual behavior right?
3. Can you cite a single passage from the Bible that indicates homosexual behavior is (a) natural behavior as God intended human sexuality to be expressed, or (b) morally acceptable?
4. Can you cite any of the multiple passages in the Bible--in both Old and New Testaments--which indicate homosexual behavior is contrary to how human sexuality was intended to function, and is not morally acceptable? Hint: there are many in both Testaments. (and so I don't have to connect the dots for you later, what this means is that while some practices mentioned in the Bible may possibly be in some manner slightly morally ambiguous...homosexual behavior is not one of them)
1. Well, there was that nasty business in Salem, where innocent women were either drowned or burned alive by well-meaning Christians who were just following Exodus 22:18. Is there some metaphorical meaning in the phrase "Do not allow a sorceress to live" that eluded them? Oh, that's right! Christ came to do away with all those brutal laws! Hallelujah!! Hmm, but too bad for those women, eh? - they're still dead. And if verses like Exodus 22:18 are no longer relevant, why where they there in the first place, and why are they STILL there today? What possible use can they serve today other than to give fanatics an excuse to justify murder? As I said, you can rationalize all you want, but modern Christians will never, ever be able to divorce themselves from their religion's bloody past. Like you, they thought they were acting in accordance with biblical doctrine. And like you, history decides whether they were right.
2. It wouldn't. When did I say it would?
3. No, but the Bible is silent about a lot of things. Can you find a passage that explicitly says oral sex between a husband and wife is natural, biologically useful, and morally acceptable? No, but does that doesn't mean it's wrong.
4. No
But before you pat yourself on the back, let's not forget that we have our own brains and don't need a book to tell us what's right or wrong. If you're brave enough to think for yourself, that is.
1. There's that little thing about the Mosaic Law, along with its ritual and dietary requirements and punishments being superseded by the New Covenant established by Christ. Witchcraft is still immoral, but we're no longer required to carry out the punishments prescribed by the Mosaic Law.
They are still in the Bible for a historical record, for one thing, but also to illustrate to us how seriously God takes sin. God is actually justified for ending our lives for even the smallest sin, because we were designed to conform to his character (it's why we were created "in his image" after all). The fact that he demands any lesser punishment is a sign of his grace--especially that grace purchased for us by Christ's sacrifice.
2. That was certainly your implication by deflecting recognition of the wrong of homosexuality by pointing to what you perceive to be a doctrinal wrong of Christianity. If you're not saying that, then your whole pursuit of this line of reasoning is pointless, isn't it?
3. You seem to be seeking moral validity for homosexual behavior. It is true that in the absence of any guidance whatsoever, a lack of mention of a particular practice could be interpreted as approval. But then there is....
4. The multitude of references in both Old and New Testaments which make it crystal clear that God's design for the expression of human sexuality is between a man and a woman in marriage, AND which make it equally crystal clear that God strongly disapproves of homosexual behavior. You may refuse to cite them...but you know they're there. Don't you?
You apparently DO need a book (one Book in particular) to tell you what's right and wrong, because you obviously don't know very much about the subject. Or I think it would be more accurate to say, you really know, but refuse to accept it.
You basically restated what I said about point #1. But the reality still stands: regardless of their intent or adherence to biblical doctrine, Christians have killed innocent people en masse throughout history. By comparison, I think the angry behavior gay activists have shown of late is pretty tame, and the number of people murdered in the name of Christianity far exceeds the number of people murdered in the name of homosexuality.
Post a Comment