PDA

View Full Version : Good Riddance



WSE
05-22-2008, 01:16 PM
Glad to see this bigot leave his post. Get a principal who does not discriminate. That would be nice

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,357205,00.html


Eddie Walker, the principal of Irmo High School in Columbia, S.C., announced his intention to step down to faculty and students on Wednesday, saying he'll end his tenure following the 2008-09 school year. The decision, outlined in a letter to Lexington-Richland School District 5 officials, said the reason was the formation of a Gay-Straight Alliance Club for students.
"Allowing the formation of this club on our campus conflicts with my professional beliefs and religious convictions," Walker wrote in the letter, obtained by FOX affiliate WACH-TV.

branflakecereal
05-22-2008, 02:05 PM
Glad to see this bigot leave his post. Get a principal who does not discriminate. That would be nice

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,357205,00.html

I find your intolerance of his disdain ironic. In the quest to be all-accepting, the pitchfork has been raised to chase off the "bigot" who acts by his personal convictions.

You don't see him suing the school board. He just doesn't want to be associated with it, and that is his right.

You may not agree with his convictions, and quite frankly, I don't either. But that doesn't make it any less his right to do so, and quite frankly, find it admirable that he is that adamant about something that he is willing to sacrifice his job to stand on principle.

Blackocrates
05-22-2008, 03:24 PM
I find your intolerance of his disdain ironic. In the quest to be all-accepting, the pitchfork has been raised to chase off the "bigot" who acts by his personal convictions.

You don't see him suing the school board. He just doesn't want to be associated with it, and that is his right.

You may not agree with his convictions, and quite frankly, I don't either. But that doesn't make it any less his right to do so, and quite frankly, find it admirable that he is that adamant about something that he is willing to sacrifice his job to stand on principle.

So we should tolerate intolerance? Plus, he never said the man didn't have a right to believe the way he did.

MoFinz
05-22-2008, 03:31 PM
So we should tolerate intolerance? Plus, he never said the man didn't have a right to believe the way he did.

But should we be intolerant of intolerance? Wouldn't being intolerant of the intolerant be intolerable? And if you become what you behold, and are content that you are right, doesn't that make them right first?

Oh no....i've gone crosseyed
:beer1:

Ferretsquig
05-22-2008, 03:33 PM
I'd love to see him explain how allowing this club to exist conflicted with his professional beliefs. If that is indeed the case, methinks he needs to find a new profession.

branflakecereal
05-22-2008, 03:56 PM
So we should tolerate intolerance? Plus, he never said the man didn't have a right to believe the way he did.

If we are going to be all-tolerant, we would have to be. That's the thing though, I don't pretend that I AM 100% tolerant.

True tolerance, however, is not to brand this man a bigot for standing by his own beliefs. Tolerance is born from the understanding and acceptance of his beliefs, whether or not you agree with them. Not derogatory namecalling and label-branding.

Calling a man a bigot for having a problem with a (KIDS) gay advocacy group in a public high school is not part of the solution. Especially with the abstinence-centric message of the school. Quite frankly, the man's got the right to think what he thinks. The man acted within his own moral boundaries, was professional about stepping down, didn't make a huge fuss, showed respect to the school board. I don't see a problem here. It's not like he's going to GLAD's headquarters and telling them they're going to hell. It's not like he's bombing an abortion clinic. He's peacefully leaving his post voluntarily.

Creating a thread with the title of "Good Riddance" in reference to what seems to be a classy guy with some archaic beliefs just seems flat out overboard, and yes, I'll go there, bigoted against old-fashioned people.

Blackocrates
05-22-2008, 04:51 PM
I guess I missed the point where he said he was all accepting. You put words in his mouth do make a point and make it seem like he was a hypocrite. You made an entire argument out of thin air, unless he's stated these things in another thread.

vinivedivichi
05-22-2008, 05:31 PM
I find your intolerance of his disdain ironic. In the quest to be all-accepting, the pitchfork has been raised to chase off the "bigot" who acts by his personal convictions.

You don't see him suing the school board. He just doesn't want to be associated with it, and that is his right.

You may not agree with his convictions, and quite frankly, I don't either. But that doesn't make it any less his right to do so, and quite frankly, find it admirable that he is that adamant about something that he is willing to sacrifice his job to stand on principle.

This is a great post. The principal's "intolerance" is a conviction that led him to step down. He didn't disparage or cause any ill towards the folks involved, he just felt that the group didn't mesh with his beliefs. That's not being intolerant.

branflakecereal
05-22-2008, 05:39 PM
I guess I missed the point where he said he was all accepting. You put words in his mouth do make a point and make it seem like he was a hypocrite. You made an entire argument out of thin air, unless he's stated these things in another thread.

The OP has a history of championing Gay Rights' threads, citing a need for equal rights, and calls non-Obama supporters racists. Hell, in one thread, he referred to far-right wingers as racists as a nice, blanket statement.

I don't think it's pulling an argument out of thin air to say that a call for tolerance for a minority group is hypocritical when you come back and impugn another minority group.

Dolphan7
05-22-2008, 06:22 PM
Guys let's keep the posts about the subject matter and not the posters and their motivations for posting threads. Thanks!

As for the OP, the charge that this man is being intolerant misses the mark. Because people disagree on moral issues does not mean they are intolerant. It means they disagree on moral issues, that's all.

This guy at least stands on the principle of his beleifs and steps down in the right manner.

I guess the pro-gay agenda won't be satisfied until all peoples all over the globe bow down and worship the gay agenda?

Blackocrates
05-22-2008, 06:50 PM
The OP has a history of championing Gay Rights' threads, citing a need for equal rights, and calls non-Obama supporters racists. Hell, in one thread, he referred to far-right wingers as racists as a nice, blanket statement.

I don't think it's pulling an argument out of thin air to say that a call for tolerance for a minority group is hypocritical when you come back and impugn another minority group.

Like I said, I didn't know if you were bringing stuff in from another thread or not. I see what you're saying, I just disagree a little. I don't believe in absolute tolerance, some things are flat out wrong and should not be tolerated.

branflakecereal
05-22-2008, 06:57 PM
Guys let's keep the posts about the subject matter and not the posters and their motivations for posting threads. Thanks!

As for the OP, the charge that this man is being intolerant misses the mark. Because people disagree on moral issues does not mean they are intolerant. It means they disagree on moral issues, that's all.

This guy at least stands on the principle of his beleifs and steps down in the right manner.

I guess the pro-gay agenda won't be satisfied until all peoples all over the globe bow down and worship the gay agenda?

That was the point I was attempting to make until I was forced to justify my original argument. Apologies if I perhaps got too personal there. I strongly resented the implication that this guy was somehow a bad person for his beliefs.

The fact of the matter is that he wasn't going to be associated with an ideal and a cause he found to be immoral, and he resigned as a result. I wonder if the connotations of his "bigotry" would be different if he were an American Muslim. All of a sudden it would be all about being understanding and thoughtful of his religion.

The Anti-Christian movement in much of the American Left flat out astounds me.

branflakecereal
05-22-2008, 07:00 PM
Like I said, I didn't know if you were bringing stuff in from another thread or not. I see what you're saying, I just disagree a little. I don't believe in absolute tolerance, some things are flat out wrong and should not be tolerated.

You're right, a lot of things are flat out wrong. The way this principal handled the situation, however, was not one of them. The man's got the right to feel how he feels, he doesn't want to support something or be associated with something he feels is morally wrong. So, he left. He didn't try to kick any gays out of the school. He didn't commit any acts of violence, or say anything incendiary. I just find it overboard to label a guy like this a bigot.

ih8brady
05-22-2008, 07:04 PM
You're right, a lot of things are flat out wrong. The way this principal handled the situation, however, was not one of them. The man's got the right to feel how he feels, he doesn't want to support something or be associated with something he feels is morally wrong. So, he left. He didn't try to kick any gays out of the school. He didn't commit any acts of violence, or say anything incendiary. I just find it overboard to label a guy like this a bigot.


Bigotry doesn't require violent acts or discrimination, all it requires is prejudice. Which Christian conservatives have plenty of for GLBTs.

branflakecereal
05-22-2008, 07:12 PM
Bigotry doesn't require violent acts or discrimination, all it requires is prejudice. Which Christian conservatives have plenty of for GLBTs.

First of all, not all Christian conservatives have prejudice against GLBT's. Secondly, a lot of GLBT's have even more prejudice against Christians.

So, by your own definition, a large number of GLBT's are religious bigots.

Blackocrates
05-22-2008, 07:15 PM
The Anti-Christian movement in much of the American Left flat out astounds me.

I don't think it's as much of an anti-christian movement as it is an anti-conservative christian movement. If any movement at all. I think some people are just pushing back from all the crap they've had to listen to and take since 2000. I know I'm sick and tired of conservative christians. Truth be told I don't mind traditional conservatives, nor do I mind christians because I'm one of them. But put the two together and that's one nasty combination.

ih8brady
05-22-2008, 07:34 PM
First of all, not all Christian conservatives have prejudice against GLBT's. Secondly, a lot of GLBT's have even more prejudice against Christians.

So, by your own definition, a large number of GLBT's are religious bigots.

Well, who comes out against laws that prevent discrimination/violence against GLBT? Its not liberal Christians.

Some people pre-judge religious or conservative people, but who has more numbers and power? The millions of con-Christians who belong to the dominionist mega-churches that are run like a corporation or the small % of the population that are sexual minorities?

branflakecereal
05-22-2008, 07:56 PM
I don't think it's as much of an anti-christian movement as it is an anti-conservative christian movement. If any movement at all. I think some people are just pushing back from all the crap they've had to listen to and take since 2000. I know I'm sick and tired of conservative christians. Truth be told I don't mind traditional conservatives, nor do I mind christians because I'm one of them. But put the two together and that's one nasty combination.

Well, I consider myself a Conservative, and I'm a Christian. However, I don't belong to the group you're referring to. I don't tell people how they ought to live. I certainly don't think it's the government's place to do so, in particular. Christianity is something people have to come to of their own free will, as I'm sure you know.

So, yes, the Falwells of the world are obnoxious, but what was it that Nixon used to cite? The Silent Majority?

branflakecereal
05-22-2008, 07:59 PM
Well, who comes out against laws that prevent discrimination/violence against GLBT? Its not liberal Christians.

Some people pre-judge religious or conservative people, but who has more numbers and power? The millions of con-Christians who belong to the dominionist mega-churches that are run like a corporation or the small % of the population that are sexual minorities?

You're consistently confusing Conservatives for Fundamentalists. There's a big difference.

cwsox
05-22-2008, 08:07 PM
I guess the pro-gay agenda won't be satisfied until all peoples all over the globe bow down and worship the gay agenda?


Anything that I say about that comment will get me banned.

Amos 5.21-24

Matthew 25.31-46

cwsox
05-22-2008, 08:11 PM
There is some confusion in this thread.

Gays are Christians.
Christians are gay.

Christianity is not anti gay.

Those who are anti gay are those with their own insecurities.

Pray for the them, to be touched by the Gospel.

http://www.ucc.org/lgbt/

WSE
05-22-2008, 10:19 PM
I guess the pro-gay agenda won't be satisfied until all peoples all over the globe bow down and worship the gay agenda?

no, but he is an authority figure over many young impressionable adults. Im happy an intolerant man is out of the position, because imo bigotry is something that is breeded from generation to generation. People are not born hating African Americans (in the past) or hating gays. Its taught. Having this man out of the authority position is a great thing.

and this is not even mentioning the closet homosexuals that are afraid to come out to their peers and family for fears of violence. A principle should be accepting and not allow any kind of discrimination at his/her school. Promote an environment of acceptance. Kind of hard when the principal is one that is doing the discriminating against a portion of the student population.

and yes, this man did leave his job the right way. Kind of. He stepped down. However, he made this a political point when he stated the reason why. When you politicize a situation like he did, expect these types of results. He put himself out there as anti gay, and if you do that, expect these results.

WSE
05-22-2008, 10:24 PM
The Anti-Christian movement in much of the American Left flat out astounds me.

its not an anti Christian movement. Its a movement against those who want to dictate how others should live their lives. What they should believe. What they should follow.

in this country, the group practicing that right now are the evangelical Christians. I have no problems with Christians who practice their religion
I hate those who try to tell others how to live.

and it seems funny to me that the far right in this country is so against any sort of theology in Iran, but is trying to create one here.

branflakecereal
05-22-2008, 10:30 PM
its not an anti Christian movement. Its a movement against those who want to dictate how others should live their lives. What they should believe. What they should follow.

in this country, the group practicing that right now are the evangelical Christians. I have no problems with Christians who practice their religion
I hate those who try to tell others how to live.

and it seems funny to me that the far right in this country is so against any sort of theology in Iran, but is trying to create one here.

You mean a theocracy? Last I checked, it wasn't illegal in the US to change your religion, or given less status in regards to your citizenship for not being Christian.

WSE
05-22-2008, 10:38 PM
You mean a theocracy? Last I checked, it wasn't illegal in the US to change your religion, or given less status in regards to your citizenship for not being Christian.

yes, of course I mean theocracy. Typo. I apologize

in regards to your point, things always have to start somewhere. Taking away freedoms and rights due to religious beliefs is where theocracy is taking deep roots in this country, especially the south

some evangelicals would love what you are talking about.

WSE
05-22-2008, 10:51 PM
Creating a thread with the title of "Good Riddance" in reference to what seems to be a classy guy with some archaic beliefs just seems flat out overboard, and yes, I'll go there, bigoted against old-fashioned people.

alright. Im going to preface this with saying that this may be a little off topic, but I think it goes in with the whole discussion. The thread obviously isn't only about a principal quitting, its about social beliefs and the changing nature of them.

and Ive been wanting to say this for a long time in regards to conservative social beliefs (im not talking about conservative economics)

I honestly dont understand conservatism in the social arena. Imo things change over time due to improvement. Wanting to remain stagnant and traditional, we would still have slavery and women would still be subservient. That god it isn't that. I don't understand how people could have a social philosophy of stagnancy.

branflakecereal
05-22-2008, 11:03 PM
alright. Im going to preface this with saying that this may be a little off topic, but I think it goes in with the whole discussion. The thread obviously isn't only about a principal quitting, its about social beliefs and the changing nature of them.

and Ive been wanting to say this for a long time in regards to conservative social beliefs (im not talking about conservative economics)

I honestly dont understand conservatism in the social arena. Imo things change over time due to improvement. Wanting to remain stagnant and traditional, we would still have slavery and women would still be subservient. That god it isn't that. I don't understand how people could have a social philosophy of stagnancy.

Alright, I gotta call you out on that. Democrats were the party that tried to keep slavery around. Democrats are the ones trying to keep blacks complacent and dependent with Welfare programs. Ultimately, it's Democrats who are still dividing people into groups and pitting people against one other.

When it comes to social issues, I'd imagine more or less we'd see eye to eye about personal views, and the role of government in enforcing them. However, I have no problems with anybody having their individual opinions, no matter how offensive, if they don't cause other people problems with them. This is America, the first amendment exists. People can say or think what they want, and the Liberal thought police need to understand that.

WSE
05-22-2008, 11:09 PM
Alright, I gotta call you out on that. Democrats were the party that tried to keep slavery around. Democrats are the ones trying to keep blacks complacent and dependent with Welfare programs. Ultimately, it's Democrats who are still dividing people into groups and pitting people against one other.

When it comes to social issues, I'd imagine more or less we'd see eye to eye about personal views, and the role of government in enforcing them. However, I have no problems with anybody having their individual opinions, no matter how offensive, if they don't cause other people problems with them. This is America, the first amendment exists. People can say or think what they want, and the Liberal thought police need to understand that.

I'm not talking about democrat vs. republican. I'm talking about conservative vs. liberal as a whole and people who have a conservative social philosophy. Obviously, party identification has changed in the past 60 years, where the Republican party now has most conservatives. Thats not the way is was when the Lincoln Republicans got rid of slavery. The Lincoln Republicans were the radical liberal party back in the day. In regards to welfare, it has nothing to do with this thread, but it goes to all races

Tetragrammaton
05-23-2008, 12:12 AM
Democrats were the party that tried to keep slavery around.

Lemonade came out of my nose when I read this. Are we really associating the modern left with the Democrats of one hundred and fifty years ago? And are we likewise giving credit to Republicans who weren't around to see it?

On topic, I actually don't have too much of a problem with the guy. At least he quit. I have to agree with some of the conservatives in that he has a right to be intolerant as long as he doesn't hurt others, just like racists have a right to say Confederate Flags and other instances.

cwsox
05-23-2008, 12:26 AM
Alright, I gotta call you out on that. Democrats were the party that tried to keep slavery around. Democrats are the ones trying to keep blacks complacent and dependent with Welfare programs. Ultimately, it's Democrats who are still dividing people into groups and pitting people against one other.



Democrats tried to keep slavery around? Ok, in 1860, the Northern Dems under Douglass wanted to contain and compromise with slavery. The Southern Dems with their own presidential candidate wanted to preserve and extend slavery. It was good they lost.

In 1948 Minneapolis mayor Hubert Humphrey game a famous speech at the Democratic convention placing the Democratic party firmly on the side of civil rights. That speech resulted in Strom Thurmond and friends walking out of the Democratic convention and Thurmond running for president in 1948 as a Dixiecrat, to preserve segregation. He then joined the Republican party. The Republicans made him president pro tem of the Senate and in the presidential succession.

1948 was the big year for the Dems on civil rights because Democratic President Harry Truman gave an executive order in July 1948 to desegregate the military. A bold move in the months prior to an election.

In 1964 GOP nominee Barry Goldwater made a major stand against the Civil Rights Act passage in the Senate.

Nixon in 1968 devised the Southern Strategy to woo Southern whites who opposed civil rights. Betwren 1969 the the 1972 election the strategy was put into play very effectively.

I would not be damning the Democrats on slavery given the historical record.

As your your other comments on Democrats and African Americans, I leave you to those and the judgment of God.

The_Dark_Knight
05-23-2008, 04:32 AM
I find your intolerance of his disdain ironic. In the quest to be all-accepting, the pitchfork has been raised to chase off the "bigot" who acts by his personal convictions.

You don't see him suing the school board. He just doesn't want to be associated with it, and that is his right.

You may not agree with his convictions, and quite frankly, I don't either. But that doesn't make it any less his right to do so, and quite frankly, find it admirable that he is that adamant about something that he is willing to sacrifice his job to stand on principle.
This is absolutely one of the most brilliant posts I have ever read and I salute you for it!!! :up:

Everyone has different opinions, values and beliefs and this principal is acting on his own. He doesn't agree with the formation of this club, feels it's contrary to his personal beliefs and is choosing not to work where there is something he doesn't believe in. He is a free American...free to think, feel and believe in anything he wants. While I don't care for his intolerance and his lack of professionalism to leave his personal beliefs at the door when he comes to work, I do give him respect for having the courage to leave his career based on his beliefs. How many people lack that courage and swallow their pride on their own personal beliefs just to keep their job?

Dolphan7
05-23-2008, 11:05 AM
There is some confusion in this thread.

Gays are Christians.
Christians are gay.

Christianity is not anti gay.

Those who are anti gay are those with their own insecurities.

Pray for the them, to be touched by the Gospel.

http://www.ucc.org/lgbt/

Your post is confusing.

The bible clearly considers homosexuality a sin. Are there christians who are involved in this sin, undoubtedly. The issue is then ........is their salvation in question by their willful involvement in that sin. God will be the ultimate decider on that issue, but the bible does tell us to repent from sin, seek forgiveness through Jesus, accept Jesus as our Savior and live according to His commandments. If one is struggling with sin then get help. Living consistantly for God and inconsistantly not.

Clearly there are churches who seek to change the bible's meaning on homosexuality. That will ultimately be between them and God, but there really is no foundation to misinterpret what is clearly writen in the bible about homosexuality. It is a sin.

Dolphan7
05-23-2008, 11:19 AM
alright. Im going to preface this with saying that this may be a little off topic, but I think it goes in with the whole discussion. The thread obviously isn't only about a principal quitting, its about social beliefs and the changing nature of them.

and Ive been wanting to say this for a long time in regards to conservative social beliefs (im not talking about conservative economics)

I honestly dont understand conservatism in the social arena. Imo things change over time due to improvement. Wanting to remain stagnant and traditional, we would still have slavery and women would still be subservient. That god it isn't that. I don't understand how people could have a social philosophy of stagnancy.Social conservatism stems from a belief in biblical principles, which, according to that belief, does not ever change. So that is why you see this holding to tradition.

The case for slavery, womens rights and civil rights really have no basis in the bible, but homosexuality is clearly identified as a sin.

So the issue is now how much does government involve itself in moral affairs. Either way it will make a moral decision on this issue.

As a Christian I am called to obey my government as long as it does not force me to personally violate God's principles. So as long as I am not being forced to do that, let the government legalize anything it wants for the masses. Ultimately everyone will have to face the creator, on their own merit. But that does not prevent me from casting my vote based on my beliefs.

I applaud this man for stepping down. I think it is shameful that he is called intolerant. I think it is hypocritical to label this man as intolerant by people who are in turn intolerant of his beliefs.

Hey I don't like neo-nazi skins heads and what they believe in, but because they have the right and the freedom to believe in what they want, we must tolerate them. Doesn't mean you invite them over for Sunday brunch.

People can get along in this country if they try, it doesn't mean we agree on everything, and if something bothers you about someone, then don't associate with that someone on that particular subject.

The labels people throw around about each other is not the solution.

cwsox
05-23-2008, 11:49 AM
but homosexuality is clearly identified as a sin.

This is untrue.

It is putting something into Scripture that is not there.

This is a political forum not a religious one but when false witness is given, it needs to be responded to.

People try to twist the Scriptures to fit their prejudices, sad really.

The bible does tell us to repent from sin of distorting Scripture, seek forgiveness through Jesus, accept Jesus as our Savior and live according to Biblical commandments. If one is struggling with sin then get help. Living consistantly for God and inconsistantly not.

Clearly there are churches who seek to change the bible's meaning on homosexuality. That will ultimately be between them and God, but there really is no foundation to misinterpret what is clearly written in the bible about homosexuality, which is nothing, the word does not appear in the Biblical texts (Greek, Hebrew, and varying underlying such as Aramaic; it only shows up in political translations of the Bible made in the 1970s and thereafter. It is a sin to put words in Scripture that are not there: shame, shame, shame). People have long twisted the Scriptures to fit their own biases and hate.

cwsox
05-23-2008, 11:54 AM
Social conservatism stems from a belief in biblical principlesThat is a crock.

You are taking your personal beliefs and saying they are Truth for everyone. You are wrong. In fact what you state is a denial of the Biblical witness which if nothing else opposes social conservatism to shake society with change.

Seriously. You are abusing your position as a mod to lay down your own individual beliefs as if the are Truth. Reality (faith) is far far far vaster than the narrow idiosyntric doctrines you espouse.

You also abuse your mod position when you denounce labels put on people while you in almost every post label people.

You know what? You do not have exclusive knowledge of the ways of God. God's teachings are not what you happen to believe. You always state that to disagree with you is to disagree with God. You do not possess all truth. That is arrogance in the extreme. You know, it is very possibly to totally disagree with you and be totally in God's light. In fact, it is probable.

Dolphan7
05-23-2008, 12:18 PM
This is untrue.

It is putting something into Scripture that is not there.

This is a political forum not a religious one but when false witness is given, it needs to be responded to.

People try to twist the Scriptures to fit their prejudices, sad really.

The bible does tell us to repent from sin of distorting Scripture, seek forgiveness through Jesus, accept Jesus as our Savior and live according to Biblical commandments. If one is struggling with sin then get help. Living consistantly for God and inconsistantly not.

Clearly there are churches who seek to change the bible's meaning on homosexuality. That will ultimately be between them and God, but there really is no foundation to misinterpret what is clearly written in the bible about homosexuality, which is nothing, the word does not appear in the Biblical texts (Greek, Hebrew, and varying underlying such as Aramaic; it only shows up in political translations of the Bible made in the 1970s and thereafter. It is a sin to put words in Scripture that are not there: shame, shame, shame). People have long twisted the Scriptures to fit their own biases and hate.
Ok then, using the KJV, which was written in 1611, what do you think these verses mean?



18:22Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
20:13If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
6:9Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
1:26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:1:27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.
1:32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Clearly the "act" of homosexuality is condemned in the Bible. No one said anything about the "word" homosexuality.

I don't think the word beastiality is in the bible either, are we to approve of the "act" of sex with animals?

phinfan3411
05-23-2008, 12:27 PM
This is getting good!

Dolphan7
05-23-2008, 12:48 PM
That is a crock.

You are taking your personal beliefs and saying they are Truth for everyone. You are wrong. In fact what you state is a denial of the Biblical witness which if nothing else opposes social conservatism to shake society with change.

Seriously. You are abusing your position as a mod to lay down your own individual beliefs as if the are Truth. Reality (faith) is far far far vaster than the narrow idiosyntric doctrines you espouse.

You also abuse your mod position when you denounce labels put on people while you in almost every post label people.

You know what? You do not have exclusive knowledge of the ways of God. God's teachings are not what you happen to believe. You always state that to disagree with you is to disagree with God. You do not possess all truth. That is arrogance in the extreme. You know, it is very possibly to totally disagree with you and be totally in God's light. In fact, it is probable.
Sir,

With all due respect, there is nothing prohibiting a MOD from posting his views in these forums. In fact it is encouraged. As long as all posts follow the guidelines of the TOS. If you feel I have violated this then please report the post and it will get addressed.

Also regarding my religious views, I take from the bible. If there is a passage or text that you would care to discuss then please do so.

MoFinz
05-23-2008, 01:23 PM
That is a crock.

You are taking your personal beliefs and saying they are Truth for everyone. You are wrong. In fact what you state is a denial of the Biblical witness which if nothing else opposes social conservatism to shake society with change.

Seriously. You are abusing your position as a mod to lay down your own individual beliefs as if the are Truth. Reality (faith) is far far far vaster than the narrow idiosyntric doctrines you espouse.

You also abuse your mod position when you denounce labels put on people while you in almost every post label people.

You know what? You do not have exclusive knowledge of the ways of God. God's teachings are not what you happen to believe. You always state that to disagree with you is to disagree with God. You do not possess all truth. That is arrogance in the extreme. You know, it is very possibly to totally disagree with you and be totally in God's light. In fact, it is probable.

Well, what do you make of Matthew 5:17

17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus did not change the law or abolish the law, but the law was made perfect in him and his selfless actions.

The bible makes it crystal clear what is a sin and what isn't. Now, personally, i don't care what people do in privacy, because each persons salvation is a matter between them an their Creator. I work on my own Salvation every day, and do not ask anyone to excuse my sins or intervene on my behalf.

I don't know that this thread has been hijacked, but i do respect the principal, because he did not cause a scene or a fuss, he filed no lawsuit. He decided to walk away. He was the bigger man.

Blackocrates
05-23-2008, 02:08 PM
Social conservatism stems from a belief in biblical principles,



You mean social conservatism stems from a subjective belief in certain chosen biblical principles, while ignore others right?

Because time and again I see conservative christians completely ignoring Christ and instead focusing on a couple of verses in the old testament. To me the modern conservative christian only seems to care about abortion, gays, christianity in government, and oddly enough guns. That's a far cry from what Christ taught us. I believe conservative christians have their priorities so far out of wack that they've lost their ability to love their fellow brothers and sisters, hence violating the underlining message from Christ. I believe these particular christians have strayed from Christ.

I grew up a conservative, I was a conservative until around 1999. Man I was hardcore, I hated gays. I thought women had a place and it wasn't alongside men. I perversely intertwined my christianity with my patriotism of america. I thought fox news, republicans, USA, and God were the greatest things going.

It seemed that one day I woke up and realized I had a lot of anger and hatred in my heart. I eventually learned the ability to empathize which taught me a lot of lessons. I learned to be compassionate, loving, and caring for all. The more softened my heart became the more I came closer to Christ. Also, the more I saw the truth in today's christian conservatives. I feel sorry for a lot of them, they are just like the way I was. They don't know any better, they're just doing what they think is right. But the people that influence them (pastors) are driving them farther and farther away from Christ's love.

Dolphan7
05-23-2008, 02:53 PM
You mean social conservatism stems from a subjective belief in certain chosen biblical principles, while ignore others right?

Because time and again I see conservative christians completely ignoring Christ and instead focusing on a couple of verses in the old testament. To me the modern conservative christian only seems to care about abortion, gays, christianity in government, and oddly enough guns. That's a far cry from what Christ taught us. I believe conservative christians have their priorities so far out of wack that they've lost their ability to love their fellow brothers and sisters, hence violating the underlining message from Christ. I believe these particular christians have strayed from Christ.

I grew up a conservative, I was a conservative until around 1999. Man I was hardcore, I hated gays. I thought women had a place and it wasn't alongside men. I perversely intertwined my christianity with my patriotism of america. I thought fox news, republicans, USA, and God were the greatest things going.

It seemed that one day I woke up and realized I had a lot of anger and hatred in my heart. I eventually learned the ability to empathize which taught me a lot of lessons. I learned to be compassionate, loving, and caring for all. The more softened my heart became the more I came closer to Christ. Also, the more I saw the truth in today's christian conservatives. I feel sorry for a lot of them, they are just like the way I was. They don't know any better, they're just doing what they think is right. But the people that influence them (pastors) are driving them farther and farther away from Christ's love.I here ya. I can't say that I ever hated anyone, but I do believe that there are some believers who don't understand how to deal with certain issues.

On the other hand it is hard for a christian to understand why there are those who seek to basically shut down religion in this country, remove it's voice, call us "the bad guys",,, and so on.

I think there could be a happy medium if people wold just stop calling names, placing labels and sit down and try to understand each other.

Blackocrates
05-23-2008, 03:20 PM
I here ya. I can't say that I ever hated anyone, but I do believe that there are some believers who don't understand how to deal with certain issues.

On the other hand it is hard for a christian to understand why there are those who seek to basically shut down religion in this country, remove it's voice, call us "the bad guys",,, and so on.

I think there could be a happy medium if people wold just stop calling names, placing labels and sit down and try to understand each other.

True

WSE
05-23-2008, 08:06 PM
Social conservatism stems from a belief in biblical principles, which, according to that belief, does not ever change. So that is why you see this holding to tradition.

The case for slavery, womens rights and civil rights really have no basis in the bible, but homosexuality is clearly identified as a sin.

So the issue is now how much does government involve itself in moral affairs. Either way it will make a moral decision on this issue.

As a Christian I am called to obey my government as long as it does not force me to personally violate God's principles. So as long as I am not being forced to do that, let the government legalize anything it wants for the masses. Ultimately everyone will have to face the creator, on their own merit. But that does not prevent me from casting my vote based on my beliefs.

I applaud this man for stepping down. I think it is shameful that he is called intolerant. I think it is hypocritical to label this man as intolerant by people who are in turn intolerant of his beliefs.

Hey I don't like neo-nazi skins heads and what they believe in, but because they have the right and the freedom to believe in what they want, we must tolerate them. Doesn't mean you invite them over for Sunday brunch.

People can get along in this country if they try, it doesn't mean we agree on everything, and if something bothers you about someone, then don't associate with that someone on that particular subject.

The labels people throw around about each other is not the solution.

a couple things

1. People have used religion to condone slavery and be against womans rights. These were traditionalists in the past, comparable to the social conservatives and their current battle against homosexuals. Liberals fought for womans rights and anti slavery. And won. And in the long run this battle will be won also, because stangancy doesnt make things better.

2. Anybody who is anti a group of individuals for something they can not control is intolerant. Period. So I will call him intolerant. I cant call people who hate homosexuals intolerant?

I applaud the man for stepping down also. Get the intolerant individual out of a position of power and authority where he can influence young minds. Did he do it gracefully? Not really. He mentioned his homosexual bias and put it out in the media. He could of just said he steps down for personal reasons, but he made it political himself when he stated the reason and put out in the open his intolerance.

WSE
05-23-2008, 08:11 PM
and let me answer allegations of my intolerance towards this individual

as I mentioned before, anybody who hates a group of people for something they can not control is intolerant

I dislike this individual for his way of thinking/belief system/political position of hatred, something he could control.

would I be intolerant for saying I don't like convicted criminals?

WSE
05-23-2008, 08:24 PM
and as I have stated before, the whole the bible says it thing doesnt count as an excuse for intolerance imo

everybody here is old enough to make their own moral decisions. Form their own beleif system. Dont get me wrong, parents, teachers, readings, and peers do influence decisions, especially of young people, but everybody also has the capacity to choose what they want to believe

I know plenty of Christians who follow religion yet are accepting and tolerant of those different. Who don't want to take away their rights. And I respect these individuals. The people who choose to follow a ? year old document literally and practice intolerance are choosing to do so. Since they are choosing to practice intolerance, they are intolerant.

simple argument. I laugh at "the bible says it" excuses and responses. Thanks for admitting how you are all sheep.

MoFinz
05-23-2008, 08:47 PM
and as I have stated before, the whole the bible says it thing doesnt count as an excuse for intolerance imo

everybody here is old enough to make their own moral decisions. Form their own beleif system. Dont get me wrong, parents, teachers, readings, and peers do influence decisions, especially of young people, but everybody also has the capacity to choose what they want to believe

I know plenty of Christians who follow religion yet are accepting and tolerant of those different. Who don't want to take away their rights. And I respect these individuals. The people who choose to follow a ? year old document literally and practice intolerance are choosing to do so. Since they are choosing to practice intolerance, they are intolerant.

simple argument. I laugh at "the bible says it" excuses and responses. Thanks for admitting how you are all sheep.


You should seriously consider who you refer to as sheep.

Seriously

There were statements made and thoughtfull replies. To stoop to demeaning not only the debate, but the debater, as sheep is totally uncalled for. Feel free to disagree. You threw "hate" out there, i didnt see anyone else doing that, especially not the Principal in question. He merely followed his own convictions. I don't see how calling people sheep gets you anywhere. Especially here.

WSE
05-23-2008, 08:52 PM
You should seriously consider who you refer to as sheep.

Seriously

There were statements made and thoughtfull replies. To stoop to demeaning not only the debate, but the debater, as sheep is totally uncalled for. Feel free to disagree. You threw "hate" out there, i didnt see anyone else doing that, especially not the Principal in question. He merely followed his own convictions. I don't see how calling people sheep gets you anywhere. Especially here.

1. I did not quote anybody.
2. I was talking in general. And to me, in general, I do not take "the bible says it" as an excuse for intolerance

and why not?

because everybody here has their own minds to think. To make up their own convictions and thoughts. And people who use the bible as an excuse for intolerance are admitting to me that they are sheep, that they cant think and come up with their own ideas.

this was to the masses that say "the bible says it" or "thats how its always been done". I laugh at that nonsense. You have a brain- use it.

MoFinz
05-24-2008, 10:51 AM
1. I did not quote anybody.
2. I was talking in general. And to me, in general, I do not take "the bible says it" as an excuse for intolerance

and why not?

because everybody here has their own minds to think. To make up their own convictions and thoughts. And people who use the bible as an excuse for intolerance are admitting to me that they are sheep, that they cant think and come up with their own ideas.

this was to the masses that say "the bible says it" or "thats how its always been done". I laugh at that nonsense. You have a brain- use it.

OK, you said Thanks for admitting how you are all sheep. That was a direct comment, no matter how you want to spin your way out of it. It was not directed at the masses, but the posters in this forum. Dont stoop to lying to weasel out of your own words.

Then, in your last sentence, you are again demeaning and dismissive. You have a brain as well, and no matter how ignorant your argument, no one accused you of not using it. If you can not, or more likely will not, discuss this in a civilized manner, then i have no more use for you. Your mind is as closed as you claim every Christians is.

I have not once seen a Christian here, or in the debated article, claim to hate homosexuals. So, unless you can back that assertion, you have put your own hatred in the hearts of people who have made no such claim.

Hypocrite much?

Dolphan7
05-26-2008, 05:01 PM
1. I did not quote anybody.
2. I was talking in general. And to me, in general, I do not take "the bible says it" as an excuse for intolerance

and why not?

because everybody here has their own minds to think. To make up their own convictions and thoughts. And people who use the bible as an excuse for intolerance are admitting to me that they are sheep, that they cant think and come up with their own ideas.

this was to the masses that say "the bible says it" or "thats how its always been done". I laugh at that nonsense. You have a brain- use it.I think you are not understanding the meaning of the word intolerant, and are then mis-apllying it to a select group of people that you yourself are intolerant of.

Intolerant means to totally not have anything to do with someone or thing that you despise. This means you wouldn't have them over for dinner. Not only that it means you don't even want to discuss the issue with them, or allow them to express their opinion. That is intolerance.

Christians believe homosexuality is a sin as outlined clearly in the bible, but we also know what sin is all about because we all struggle with different aspects of sin, and we also listen to people who are struggling with sin and try to help them if we can, if they need or want that help. We work with, live by, associate with people involved in all sorts of sin on a daily basis, so to say we are intolerant isn't really accurate. Being Gay doesn't separate one from God by itself. Whether one is gay or not - we are all sinners and the only way to salvation is to accept Jesus' sacrifice as a totally free gift that we do not deserve.

Now as a christian and an american I choose to live in an area where there is low crime, low drugs, low prostitution, good home values and good looking neihborhoods. Now am I being intolerant of criminals, drug users, whores, slums etc..?????

All this guy did was choose to not be a part of something. That is all.

It is funny the first ones to claim intolerance are typically those who are themsleves intolerant of something or other too.

WSE
05-26-2008, 06:53 PM
I think you are not understanding the meaning of the word intolerant, and are then mis-apllying it to a select group of people that you yourself are intolerant of.

Intolerant means to totally not have anything to do with someone or thing that you despise. This means you wouldn't have them over for dinner. Not only that it means you don't even want to discuss the issue with them, or allow them to express their opinion. That is intolerance.

Christians believe homosexuality is a sin as outlined clearly in the bible, but we also know what sin is all about because we all struggle with different aspects of sin, and we also listen to people who are struggling with sin and try to help them if we can, if they need or want that help. We work with, live by, associate with people involved in all sorts of sin on a daily basis, so to say we are intolerant isn't really accurate. Being Gay doesn't separate one from God by itself. Whether one is gay or not - we are all sinners and the only way to salvation is to accept Jesus' sacrifice as a totally free gift that we do not deserve.

you could go into your usual bs- it doesn't affect me. If you/anybody wants to deny equal rights- like rights of marriage or the rights to assembly as a group, then you are discriminating. And discriminating= intolerance. I don't care for the reason. You could hide behind the bible and call it a sin- that doesn't work for me as an excuse.

a person wanting to deny rights to a group for something they can not control= intolerance. Simple definition.


Now as a christian and an american I choose to live in an area where there is low crime, low drugs, low prostitution, good home values and good looking neihborhoods. Now am I being intolerant of criminals, drug users, whores, slums etc..?????

All this guy did was choose to not be a part of something. That is all.

It is funny the first ones to claim intolerance are typically those who are themsleves intolerant of something or other too.I already went into this.

and let me answer allegations of my intolerance towards this individual

as I mentioned before, anybody who hates a group of people for something they can not control is intolerant

I dislike this individual for his way of thinking/belief system/political position of hatred, something he could control.

would I be intolerant for saying I don't like convicted criminals?so now that that is answered, I could go into MoFinz post. That last sentence that you say shows my intolerance, it started with something to the masses.

this was to the masses that say "the bible says it" or "thats how its always been done". I laugh at that nonsense. You have a brain- use it.that was my quote. It was to everybody that uses the bible as an excuse for intolerance. It was not directed to anybody specifically, but people who do what I am saying is laughable. Some on here may do that, so yea, it may go for some posters. But the comment was in general. Its not my fault people follow it. Its theirs. And its their loss

like I said in the past. people have used the bible and still do for slavery and the denial of womens rights. I consider the denial of rights for gays in the same boat. And saying the "bible says its wrong" doesn't let them off the hook for their intolerance. People look at those who deny womans rights today as male shovenist (sp?) pigs. They look at those who deny civil rights racists. The denial of rights to the gay population will one day be in that same category.

MoFinz
05-26-2008, 07:25 PM
you could go into your usual bs- it doesn't affect me. If you/anybody wants to deny equal rights- like rights of marriage or the rights to assembly as a group, then you are discriminating. And discriminating= intolerance. I don't care for the reason. You could hide behind the bible and call it a sin- that doesn't work for me as an excuse.

a person wanting to deny rights to a group for something they can not control= intolerance. Simple definition.

I already went into this.
so now that that is answered, I could go into MoFinz post. That last sentence that you say shows my intolerance, it started with something to the masses.
that was my quote. It was to everybody that uses the bible as an excuse for intolerance. It was not directed to anybody specifically, but people who do what I am saying is laughable. Some on here may do that, so yea, it may go for some posters. But the comment was in general. Its not my fault people follow it. Its theirs. And its their loss

like I said in the past. people have used the bible and still do for slavery and the denial of womens rights. I consider the denial of rights for gays in the same boat. And saying the "bible says its wrong" doesn't let them off the hook for their intolerance. People look at those who deny womans rights today as male shovenist (sp?) pigs. They look at those who deny civil rights racists. The denial of rights to the gay population will one day be in that same category.


Your original quote, which you want to disown apparently

"simple argument. I laugh at "the bible says it" excuses and responses. Thanks for admitting how you are all sheep."

Wow....you are so in denial and spin control, i don't even have the desire. You called posters in this forum sheep, you demeaned and dismissed valid arguments because they are inconvenient to you. You were not referencing any group en mass, you were dismissing the opinions of posters in this forum that did not jibe with what you believe. You decry intolerance, yet ignore your own intolerance of other peoples opinions.

Again...hypocrite much?

WSE
05-26-2008, 08:01 PM
Your original quote, which you want to disown apparently

"simple argument. I laugh at "the bible says it" excuses and responses. Thanks for admitting how you are all sheep."

Wow....you are so in denial and spin control, i don't even have the desire. You called posters in this forum sheep, you demeaned and dismissed valid arguments because they are inconvenient to you. You were not referencing any group en mass, you were dismissing the opinions of posters in this forum that did not jibe with what you believe. You decry intolerance, yet ignore your own intolerance of other peoples opinions.

Again...hypocrite much?

you seem to think "you" is referencing specifics. I think people who use those words are sheep. In general.

I'm sorry you don't like my choice of words. I was saying people who use that are sheep. People who use the bible says it instead of thinking for themselves- since everybody is old enough to come up with their own thoughts and conclusions. If people on here use it, than yes, they are sheep imo. I will live up to that comment.

I was not referencing particular posters, even though it is obvious that it does apply to some on here

Dolphan7
05-27-2008, 01:03 AM
you could go into your usual bs- it doesn't affect me. If you/anybody wants to deny equal rights- like rights of marriage or the rights to assembly as a group, then you are discriminating. And discriminating= intolerance. I don't care for the reason. You could hide behind the bible and call it a sin- that doesn't work for me as an excuse.

a person wanting to deny rights to a group for something they can not control= intolerance. Simple definition.

I already went into this.
so now that that is answered, I could go into MoFinz post. That last sentence that you say shows my intolerance, it started with something to the masses.
that was my quote. It was to everybody that uses the bible as an excuse for intolerance. It was not directed to anybody specifically, but people who do what I am saying is laughable. Some on here may do that, so yea, it may go for some posters. But the comment was in general. Its not my fault people follow it. Its theirs. And its their loss

like I said in the past. people have used the bible and still do for slavery and the denial of womens rights. I consider the denial of rights for gays in the same boat. And saying the "bible says its wrong" doesn't let them off the hook for their intolerance. People look at those who deny womans rights today as male shovenist (sp?) pigs. They look at those who deny civil rights racists. The denial of rights to the gay population will one day be in that same category.
In order for you to call a christian intolerant, according to your very own definition, you must first find where the hate is. I have not seen any posts stating hate for homosexuals. In fact I doubt you could find much evidence among the greater christian populations of the world that would readily say they hate homosexuals. Sure you have your cults and maniacs and those that misuse the bible, but they areally don't count do they.

Your insinuation that people who believe the bible and believe that God has set an absolute moral standard for everyone....can't think for themselves is disengenuous. Ever think that people of faith think that people like you are not thinking for themselves and are just going with what society tells them they should think? Hmmm? The Sword cuts in both directions.

Gay rights may one day be considered right up there with race and womens rights no doubt, but it will definately have a biblical resaon for rejecting it. At some point man's laws will split from God's laws. This is one of those instances.

To me it does not matter. If gays want to marry so what, go for it. It does not mean I have to, and it does not mean I have to accept it. It does not mean that I have to be involved in it, or be around it if I choose not to. What can't you understand about people of faith. Will we someday be accepted only if we accept things that we believe to be wrong? Will we then lose that intolerant label?

Hey live and let live. Christians may not like it, or accept homosexuality, but if gays are allowed to marry then christians will definitely be able to live with it. Why can't people like you live with the fact that some people do things that others don't like or approve of? Why the labels and the hatred? Hmmm?