Let The Pu$$y Grabbing Commence!!

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

Abraham Lincoln was a Republican.

 

[riverman]

Chris Craig uppercuts ME in the balls and I'd have to rethink my don't beat up little guys rule. That is a rule by the way, I don't fight people I truly believe have a less than 50 percent chance of surviving. It has served me well, I just used to pick them up and throw them.

You're Chris Kaman?

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Fair enough. Social conservatism is probably something I will fight tooth and nail for the rest of my days.

Also, I think you play a little fast and loose with the term "intolerant". For instance, I personally believe that heterosexual relationships are inherently more right than homosexual ones, but don't believe that there should be laws necessarily codifying that. Does that make me intolerant?

 

[dviss1]

That's hilarious. Jesus never did anything violent. As a matter of fact you turn the other cheek too those were violent to him. Most conservative Christians don't subscribe to anything Jesus subscribed to.
Who did Jesus charge for food? Who did Jesus charge for healthcare? The lady simply touched the Hem of His Garment and was healed for free. She had a flow of blood for 12 years... Conservative Christians (this will probably ruffle some feathers) are not real Christians in my opinion. They're Calvinists.

 

[riverman]

Cuck is one of them.

I still don't know what that means....el prez is the first I heard use it....I thought it meant urban Asian American Blazer fan who misses Oregon

 

[riverman]

Also, I think you play a little fast and loose with the term "intolerant". For instance, I personally believe that heterosexual relationships are inherently more right than homosexual ones, but don't believe that there should be laws necessarily codifying that. Does that make me intolerant?

only if you think they are wrong for their choice in my view

 

[PtldPlatypus]

That's hilarious. Jesus never did anything violent. As a matter of fact you turn the other cheek too those were violent to him. Most conservative Christians don't subscribe to anything Jesus subscribed to.
Who did Jesus charge for food? Who did Jesus charge for healthcare? The lady simply touched the Hem of His Garment and was healed for free. She had a flow of blood for 12 years... Conservative Christians (this will probably ruffle some feathers) are not real Christians in my opinion. They're Calvinists.

Jesus also wasn't a government entity. Jesus preached for people to behave the way he did, not to make the government do so. He preached personal repentance, not government reformation.

 

[dviss1]

Also, I think you play a little fast and loose with the term "intolerant". For instance, I personally believe that heterosexual relationships are inherently more right than homosexual ones, but don't believe that there should be laws necessarily codifying that. Does that make me intolerant?

Yes it does. What if your child said they were gay? You'd have to just accept it or be out of their lives. See people throw around this word tolerance all the time.

"I'm tolerant of the gays..."

No... You simply have to accept them because there's no changing them.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

only if you think they are wrong for their choice in my view

See, that's where you and I differ. I believe that it's possible to believe someone is wrong in their choices, and still tolerate both the person and their choice. In fact, that is the very definition of tolerance.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Yes it does. What if your child said they were gay? You'd have to just accept it or be out of their lives. See people throw around this word tolerance all the time.

"I'm tolerant of the gays..."

No... You simply have to accept them because there's no changing them.

You're changing the definition of the word "tolerance".

 

[dviss1]

Jesus also wasn't a government entity. Jesus preached for people to behave the way he did, not to make the government do so. He preached personal repentance, not government reformation.

In the immortal words of Jay-Z and Kanye West:

"what's a king to a god?"

 

[dviss1]

You're changing the definition of the word "tolerance".

I hate the word tolerance. I know it means I'm not changing it definition. People need to take it out of their vocabulary and say acceptance instead.

 

[dviss1]

I've seen this on many a Christian household wall but still there are many of them that don't put it into practice:

God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I hate the word tolerance. I know it means I'm not changing it definition. People need to take it out of their vocabulary and say acceptance instead.

OK--then when you call me "intolerant", what does that mean to you?

 

[riverman]

Abraham Lincoln was a Republican.

that ended well for him......... not......

 

[MarAzul]

I hate...

 

[Chris Craig]

Consveratism is inherently intolerant of change. To conserve is to keep things as they are. Progress is neccessary, as the world changes, as our country changes, we cannot remain unchanged.

 

[riverman]

I still use the term but try to curb it more....like, I hate the Lakers

 

[MarAzul]

Sharia law and Christian law are one in the same. Read a book.

Wow! Where do you find this stuff?

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Consveratism is inherently intolerant of change. To conserve is to keep things as they are. Progress is neccessary, as the world changes, as our country changes, we cannot remain unchanged.

I disagree with your terminology. Conservatism is generally resistant to change, but not necessarily intolerant of it.

Also, it is a fallacy to assume that all change is inherently progress. Often change is indeed progress, but many times things change for the worse.

 

[Chris Craig]

Abraham Lincoln was a Republican.

Wrong

Abraham Lincoln would be a Democrat in today's political climate. He was not a Republican as the party is known today, and for republicans to use him as an example for their party is foolish. He was more of a Whig party guy whose ambitions were to use government power for public service.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

That's hilarious. Jesus never did anything violent. As a matter of fact you turn the other cheek too those were violent to him. Most conservative Christians don't subscribe to anything Jesus subscribed to.
Who did Jesus charge for food? Who did Jesus charge for healthcare? The lady simply touched the Hem of His Garment and was healed for free. She had a flow of blood for 12 years... Conservative Christians (this will probably ruffle some feathers) are not real Christians in my opinion. They're Calvinists.

I have no idea if those tweets are true.

 

[Chris Craig]

I disagree with your terminology. Conservatism is generally resistant to change, but not necessarily intolerant of it.

Also, it is a fallacy to assume that all change is inherently progress. Often change is indeed progress, but many times things change for the worse.

You can call a pig a cow, but it's still a pig. No, all change is not progress, and yes sometimes change is bad, but change leads to progress, we learn from what we err...and being intolerant...excuse me ahem...resistant to all change diminishes and impedes progress

 

[dviss1]

OK--then when you call me "intolerant", what does that mean to you?

It means you're not accepting of things you can't change. Normal things. It's normal to be gay just like it is to be Hetero. The moment people understand this and stop thinking about gay sex is the moment when acceptance will begin to occur.

See here's the thing about gay people everybody talks about the sex. There was a Christian website that every time they spoke about Tyson Gay the Sprinter the auto filter turned his last name into homosexual. What that says to me, especially since you always hear the term homosexual and not gay from conservatives, is that too many people are concentrated on gay sex. They never concentrate on the love that those two Souls have for one another. Those two are in love.

So, if God is love, and you do not know love unless you know God, how is the love between them explained? If God doesn't make mistakes then that means he created gay people because they are born that way not made.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

To see how much the political parties have changed read about the Scopes Monkey Trial and see which political party was for evolution and which party was for creationism to be taught in schools.

 

[Chris Craig]

To see how much the political parties have changed read about the Scopes Monkey Trial and see which political party was for evolution and which party was for creationism to be taught in schools.

Why could we not have been created, then evolved?

 

[MarAzul]

Consveratism is inherently intolerant of change. To conserve is to keep things as they are. Progress is neccessary, as the world changes, as our country changes, we cannot remain unchanged.

I need to get back to work, but I do have a thought you prompted.
Conservatism not intolerant to change. The Constitution is a prime example of the conservative way, complete with a prescribed due process to permit change. All change is not progressive, it also can be regressive or even worse. In ignoring the prescribe process to implement change, you have no idea what you will get, but it is more than likely subversive if not destructive.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Why could we not have been created, then evolved?

God doesn't evolve, he simply is. We are made in his image, therefore we can not evolve. It's simple math.

 

[barfo]

All change is not progressive, it also can be regressive or even worse.

See, e.g., this Friday.

barfo

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

Wrong

Abraham Lincoln would be a Democrat in today's political climate. He was not a Republican as the party is known today, and for republicans to use him as an example for their party is foolish. He was more of a Whig party guy whose ambitions were to use government power for public service.

Wrong.

He was National Union Party: The National Union Party was the name used by the Republican Party for the national ticket in the 1864 presidential election, held during the Civil War. It was to sway Democrats and others who would have otherwise not voted Republican.

I don't disagree with your assertion that it's a little odd that the Republican party uses him as an example. But he was otherwise Republican. Most people don't know or understand this. He was more moderate, at least from the couple of books I read on him, but I don't necessarily agree he'd be Democrat by today's standards. The two party system is a joke anyway, as this board (and all other public forums) make that pretty clear, judging by the way people overgeneralize each party and the type of people we are based on their party affiliation.