ArchivedPA officials guilty of blatant violation of First AmendmentTrue,.....but I'M not arguing for scriptural verification, so I presume this is meant for others on this post... I said this. I agreed with it totally. How did you miss it? Look: "So even though there are some people that could be called a Christianphobe, (the word isn't a currently accepted one, but I'll agree with you that some could be likened to a homophobe if they acted the same way), I am not. " I described the essence of bigotry and admitted that if people discriminated against people simply for BEING Christians the same way as some people discriminate against people for being homosexual, then they are just as bad. I thought I made it clear that I can disagree with the CONCEPTS a Christian puts forth for their belief, but I have nothing against a self-professed title as a Christian. There are many Christians that hold vastly different views on such subjects as homosexuality and I would never tar them all with the same brush. Of course many in the religious fold argue they aren't TRULY Christian if they don't agree with their interpretation of what is wrong or right, but that's not MY argument, it's theirs. I'm accepting of people that believe Jesus was real and that he was the son of God, even though they cannot prove God's existence. But the specific points along the way I'll argue if they contradict with science. Science is not my "god", because it doesn't require faith. It only requires understanding of it's reasoning. Am I making sense? I hate to come across as a contrary curmudgeon. You wouldn't even RECOGNIZE me and my personality in my day to day life. I don't argue like this. I'm as easy going as they come. Only on a webboard do I find that this deep introspectiveness and in depth debating really takes place.... |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame