Tim Thomas Stands with Chick-Fil-A (i.e. against gay marriage)

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by Knalus

I don't see an answer to the question "You know what it's called when you judge an entire identifiable group based on the perceived attitudes and actions of a small subset of that group, don't you?"

If I play your pointless, trollish little game, will you answer the questions posed to you throughout this thread that I've bolded above?

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

If I play your pointless, trollish little game, will you answer the questions posed to you throughout this thread that I've bolded above?

Just answer the troll - you're actually referring to the 'small subset' anyway, so it isn't like answering his question means anything for his side of the argument.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Just answer the troll - you're actually referring to the 'small subset' anyway, so it isn't like answering his question means anything for his side of the argument.

He put in white text in that post:

Don't like being baited now, do you? Neither do I.

What he doesn't realize is every question he's been asked to this point and avoided have been integral to understanding why his position is what it is. He, on the other hand, may as well be asking me "what colour is the sky?" for all it matters. Obviously, answering his question doesn't mean anything more than if I said "blue." But, if by typing a single word out will finally make him answer what he's avoided to this point, I don't have a problem with it!


Discrimination.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

I'm not answering you because I already have above. Good Lord, man, I realize you think you are being exceedingly clever, but read. The vast majority of Evangelical Christians are anti-gay marriage. It is more than safe to assume the vast majority of these Christians responding to the requests of evangelical leaders to stage these Chick-Fil-A sit-ins in defense of their anti-gay marriage values are Evangelical Christians. However, I wasn't even referring to all Evangelical Christians: I was referring specifically to those that responded to this call and went to Chick-Fil-A to show their support for the anti-gay marriage stance.

Now, the questions you've repeatedly avoided (that actually pertain to the topic on hand), answer. Otherwise, you just look like a troll, especially with the text you tried to hide.

1) Why do gay marriages not count as marriages by definition? "Because' is not an answer.

2) How are you personally affected by the legalization of gay marriages?

3) Why is the definition changing "too important a thing to let change"?

4) What are the actual losses you've experienced since the legalization of gay marriage in Canada?

Answer them, because avoiding them the way you have make you look like someone spouting nonsense without a point, and is not how educated adults have discussions. And if you're incapable of defending rationally what you are saying, why are you still here?

I answered #1. You don't like the answer, but I did answer it. You keep asking the question, and all it is doing is trying to aggravate me.

#2: I've had to deal with idiots who think I'm a bigot just because I have a principled position, and people who think that (all) Christians are to blame because a definition is undergoing a political attack. As a Christian, it is much more difficult to openly practice my faith due to attacks like this. Attacks that miss the point in my mind. The fact that 90% of responses that are in this thread are anti-Christian is a telling point. The fact is that I am NOT an evangelical. Yet it still affects me.

#3. I answered that too. I don't trust that it will be left at that, even if I agreed that the definition could be changed.

#4. Actual losses? Aside from the ones I've pointed out in question #2? And question #3? Well, I'm still married if that's what you are asking. To a good woman who actually DOES believe in gay marriage, I might add. BTW, it's the same question as #2.




The only question I didn't answer before was "how does this affect you personally". Honestly, I didn't what point that was supposed to make, other than to bait me. Starving children in Africa don't affect me, so I shouldn't get involved there, right? How does this affect YOU personally, that you are willing to get involved? It's just not relevant.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by Knalus

You know what it's called when you judge an entire identifiable group based on the perceived attitudes and actions of a small subset of that group, don't you?

You mean when you say that the activists leading the anti-gay marriage crusade are evangelical christians?

Pretty accurate IMO...

Is every Evangelical Christian homophobic? No. Are all homophobes Evangelical Christian? Nope.

Its not a black and white issue...lots of shades of grey...or rainbows if you prefer

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

You know fully well the Christians I was referring to, and you're only looking to nit-pick. Unless you're living under a rock or haven't been following along in this thread, Christians inside Chick-Fil-A have been staging sit-ins for the past couple of days to celebrate their values and their anti-gay marriage stance. It's pigeon-holing nothing, and you're doing little but attempting to tippy-toe around the issue in an attempt not to offend.

Not really.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

He put in white text in that post:



What he doesn't realize is every question he's been asked to this point and avoided have been integral to understanding why his position is what it is. He, on the other hand, may as well be asking me "what colour is the sky?" for all it matters. Obviously, answering his question doesn't mean anything more than if I said "blue." But, if by typing a single word out will finally make him answer what he's avoided to this point, I don't have a problem with it!


Discrimination.

The white text in your post is the answer to the question I wasn't answering. I didn't think it was a good idea to claim in a thread like this that Christians were being discriminated against, too, for bloody obvious reasons. But come on, the posts you were making were going so far in that direction, I had to point it out somehow. Your inability to see what you were saying was getting too hard to resist. Kettle, meet pot.

If you'll excuse me, I have to go shower. I feel dirty even trying to point this out. I'm pretty sure you still don't understand what I was trying to say, so I'm going to wait till something else more interesting comes up before I comment on that.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by Knalus

I answered #1. You don't like the answer, but I did answer it. You keep asking the question, and all it is doing is trying to aggravate me.

#2: I've had to deal with idiots who think I'm a bigot just because I have a principled position, and people who think that (all) Christians are to blame because a definition is undergoing a political attack. As a Christian, it is much more difficult to openly practice my faith due to attacks like this. Attacks that miss the point in my mind. The fact that 90% of responses that are in this thread are anti-Christian is a telling point. The fact is that I am NOT an evangelical. Yet it still affects me.

#3. I answered that too. I don't trust that it will be left at that, even if I agreed that the definition could be changed.

#4. Actual losses? Aside from the ones I've pointed out in question #2? And question #3? Well, I'm still married if that's what you are asking. To a good woman who actually DOES believe in gay marriage, I might add. BTW, it's the same question as #2.




The only question I didn't answer before was "how does this affect you personally". Honestly, I didn't what point that was supposed to make, other than to bait me. Starving children in Africa don't affect me, so I shouldn't get involved there, right? How does this affect YOU personally, that you are willing to get involved? It's just not relevant.

Like squeezing water out of a rock.

#1 - My post. Where is your answer? This?! "Because it isn't marriage, it's something else." That is your explanation? "Even if I caved, and started calling it marriage, that wouldn't actually mean it is marriage. It is something else."

I'm sorry, but, no, I don't like it. Because it's not a rational answer. You're just repeating what it isn't, and saying it's something else. False logic, perhaps?

#2 - It's actually more difficult for you to practice your Christian faith openly now that gay marriage is legalized? Are you serious? Are you accosted by fanatical gays or something? I'm honestly curious.

#3 - This doesn't answer the question at all. We already know you don't want the definition changed, that you think this is too important a thing to change, but why? There must be a why other than because it may change more, otherwise, you wouldn't care about it changing more.

I'm not sure why you believe asking you to explain yourself is an attempt at baiting you.

Originally Posted by Knalus

Nope, I don't care who you love. Another guy, a girl, a group of three guys and four girls, a horse, a throwpillow, I honestly don't care.

But wait, now you want to change what it means to be married? I'm married. That does affect me. It's false to state it doesn't affect me.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Not really.

Well, since you say so . . .

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by Knalus

The white text in your post is the answer to the question I wasn't answering. I didn't think it was a good idea to claim in a thread like this that Christians were being discriminated against, too, for bloody obvious reasons. But come on, the posts you were making were going so far in that direction, I had to point it out somehow. Your inability to see what you were saying was getting too hard to resist. Kettle, meet pot.

If you'll excuse me, I have to go shower. I feel dirty even trying to point this out. I'm pretty sure you still don't understand what I was trying to say, so I'm going to wait till something else more interesting comes up before I comment on that.

Quote me the "posts" of mine that were discriminating against Christians and taking me "so far in that direction."

[Senator Clay Davis]

Not too be too a-holish, but Christians have been persecuting others for thousands of years. They aren't even being persecuted against, its just some of the things they used to be or even still are completely against are now becoming accepted by the majority of people. Religion is losing its hold on the world, except in the Islamic world, and most religious people don't like that. But thats just not going to change anytime soon.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

So did I. I hated every minute of it, and it's a huge issue between my folks and I.

Some people just aren't cut out for Military lifestyle.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

Well, since you say so . . .

To clarify, I was referring to your statements about me.

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

This picture brings me to another interesting question--of the many men who are staunchly against gay marriage, how many do you think have beat it to lesbian porn?

Do people realize that by trying to prevent gay marriage, you aren't going to actually stop people from being gay, right? They're going to keep doing what they're doing, only you're going to judge and restrict them based on it. Pretty sure the Bible says that only God should judge, but hey, I've only read it a couple times.

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Not too be too a-holish, but Christians have been persecuting others for thousands of years. They aren't even being persecuted against, its just some of the things they used to be or even still are completely against are now becoming accepted by the majority of people. Religion is losing its hold on the world, except in the Islamic world, and most religious people don't like that. But thats just not going to change anytime soon.

This reminds me of a quote from Jon Stewart (though out of context, as it was referencing the birth control debate of a few months ago):

You've confused a war on your religion with not always getting everything you want.

This is not a war on anyone's religion. As mentioned above, no fanatical gay rights enthusiasts are going to stand outside of your church on Sunday morning and refuse to let you enter.

So you're called a bigot? Called out for your intolerance? Oh, I'm sorry.

Homosexuals are having basic rights refused to them. At the very least, they are denied the pleasure of being able to call their partner a husband or a wife. In other cases they're being verbally and emotionally harassed, and in extreme cases some are beaten to the point of death simply because of the person they love.

I'm sorry, but someone on an internet forum telling you that your views are dated and that you're a bigot is a whole lot different than someone breaking into your home, vandalizing your property and beating you senseless, as recently happened to a woman in Texas, solely because she was a lesbian.

When I regularly see reports of gay rights activists beating right wing conservatives because of their beliefs, then I'll believe that it's an "attack" on your religion. Until then, it's merely the religious right throwing a hissy fit because they don't believe it's okay.

(And if you wondered how backwards this country can still be from time to time, in the last month, a pastor of a mostly-white congregation in Mississippi refused to allow a black couple to be married in his church. Because "five or six" people complained. This country has a lot of places that are still really, really screwed up.)

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by knalus

you keep asking the question, and all it is doing is trying to aggravate me.

#2: The fact is that i am not an evangelical. yet it still affects me.

#4. Actual losses? Aside from the ones i've pointed out in question #2? Well, i'm still married if that's what you are asking. To a good woman who actually does believe in gay marriage, i might add. Btw, it's the same question as #2.

Originally Posted by knalus;

Nope, I don't care who you love. Another guy, a girl, a group of three guys and four girls, a horse, a throwpillow, I honestly don't care.

But wait, now you want to change what it means to be married? I'm married. That does affect me. It's false to state it doesn't affect me.

HOW does it affect you?

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Why should I be worried about this? Unlike you, I do not envision the world embroiled in some sort of cosmic battle between the forces of God and Satan, with humanity falling sharply on either side. I do not consider atheism and atheists to be my "enemies."

You should worry about this because beginning with our Saviour and on through the centuries christians and specifically the gospel has been recieved by a few and despised by many. Are these verses not in your bible?:

Joh 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
Joh 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
Joh 3:21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

Of course the light the apostle John is talking about is Jesus the Christ. And it is that light we are to bare:

Joh 8:12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.


You can't argue the atheists on here and many other non-believers hate the notion of sin or accountability towards God. I can generate three pages of venom by just identifying something as a sin.

You on the other hand offend no one with your faith. That is because your dogma conforms to the world whenever there is a possibility of offence. Your bible must be pretty small with all the pages you've ripped out. You should worry that a gospel and set of books that so many have died for rather than compromise you won't risk living by. Is that light John talked about even in you?

Originally Posted by Textcritic

It is not often that I am accused of being too heavily influenced by "german rationalism", but when it does happen, these charges always stem from those whom I would consider to be fundamentalists and biblicists. As always, this crowd is about fifty-years behind the rest of us and are still fighting intellectual battles that all ended before the Vietnam War. It's typical, so you will forgive me if I reject your "observation" as utterly vapid, and completely beside the point—any point—that has been made in this thread or others like it.

Now I know german rationalism has been around for almost 300 years. The philosophy actually can be traced back to early in Genesis. What I don't know is what happened 50 years ago. Perhaps that is when your denomination/church went apostate. It is not suprising that once you left the faith "onced delivered unto the saints"(Jude3) that you became hostile towards it. That is a very human reaction.

Your philosophy(german rationalism) has a lot to do with what you type within this thread. When I look at a scripture passage the question I tend to ask is: "What is God saying here?". When you look at a scripture passage the question you tend to ask is: "hath God said?". The questions are different and result in vastly different interpretations of scriptures. I approach the scriptures as a believer; You approach the scriptures as just another book.

Originally Posted by Textcritic

It is also quite typical for biblicists to construct their arguments from authority. Again, why should any of us care about the opinions of "esteemed biblical scholars" and "high religious councils"? Maybe this sounds odd coming from a biblical scholar, but no one—you included—should ever adopt a theological position because of what we say, or because it is enshrined in some creed. You do so because our arguments are highly plausible and grounded in evidence. If they are unconvincing or do not meet an acceptable burden of proof, then you should reject them.

My theological positions were adopted after much personal study. Was I influenced by teachers and Pastors? Sure but, I have always attempted to put the authority of scriptures above any man. I have also always held dogma to be a public matter; Something I am willing to debate and defend.

The reason why I site biblical scholars and councils is two fold:

Firstly, your beliefs again because of your philosophy(german rationalism) are not main stream. You aren't representative of that faith once delivered Jude was talking about. Now I know because of your philosophy you believe the goal posts has changed many times in scriptures and through out the centuries. What you fail to see is that you are the one moving them. Marriage in scriptures has always been between a man and a women.

Secondly, you call yourself "Textcritic". You could have chosen a name like I did saying where you were born. You could have chosen a name based on your favorite hockey player. You chose to highlight your profession. You have presented yourself as a expert. I will continue to remind you and anyone reading these post that you might be an expert but, you are not orthodox. The greatest christian scholars through out the centuries rejected your philosophy and the resulting conclusions.

[Reaper]

Ah, another post where Calgaryborn tells people how he disapproves of other people based on his interpretations of an ancient group of texts. Now then, will Calgaryborn rant against those who eat shellfish or come in contact with women who are menstrating?

[SeeBass]

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

In fact, the substance of calgaryborn's post is this:

"Textcritic's philosophy (which Calgaryborn has badly misunderstood, btw) leads him to read the text of the bible in a way that's different from how I do it. My way is right and leads to the right results. His is wrong because I don't like its results."

After all that fancy verbiage, it's all built on a tautology. He's put (slightly) more effort than usual into his argument, but as usual it's a house of cards. It's.... pretty boring, actually.

(edited for clarity)

[WhiteTiger]