Re: Coalition For Marriage : Sat Jun 02, 2012 10:02 am  

Dally wrote:

I believe that the Concise OED does.

You will of course be able to provide a link then?

Re: Coalition For Marriage : Sat Jun 02, 2012 10:26 am  

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bigot "a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race" So I was spot on when I said... "A bigot it someone who is intolerant of other peoples views"

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bigot "a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race" So I was spot on when I said... "A bigot it someone who is intolerant of other peoples views"

Re: Coalition For Marriage : Sat Jun 02, 2012 10:29 am  

Ajw71 wrote:

"A bigot it someone who is intolerant of other peoples views"

Which is not its common meaning today, although you are a champion at splitting hairs aren't you, are you defending the PO's views?

Re: Coalition For Marriage : Sat Jun 02, 2012 10:37 am  

Big Graeme wrote:

Dally wrote:

I believe that the Concise OED does.

You will of course be able to provide a link then?

It's off-site.

Re: Coalition For Marriage : Sat Jun 02, 2012 3:25 pm  

Rock God X wrote:

It's off-site.

And not the Daily Mail.

Re: Coalition For Marriage : Sat Jun 02, 2012 4:00 pm  

Whatever your definition of bigot, the vast majority of intolerance on this thread stems from the disgusting homophobic tone set by the op.
I for one am not intolerant of religion, but will not allow some of the reactionary and dangerous beliefs espoused and championed by many religions to go unchallenged.

If my intolerance of gay-bashing makes me a bigot then I plead guilty to bigotry on a grand scale.

Re: Coalition For Marriage : Sat Jun 02, 2012 4:59 pm  

Rock God X wrote:

It's off-site.

It's upstairs.

Re: Coalition For Marriage : Sat Jun 02, 2012 5:16 pm  

I am not a bigot, but I do like bigos.

Meanwhile can I remind kirkstaller that he's forgotten (again) to answer any of the questions I put? Just so he doesn't have to go too far back in the thread?

Oh, and love the "bigot" straw man. Fantastic. Sadly though, back on this planet, a bigot is indeed a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his own. However, only an utter idiot, or a troll, would extract from that the proposition that unless I am tolerant of EVERY idea other than my own, I am a bigot. That really is batshit loony crazy howling barking mad.

So then, would I be a bigot because I was intolerant of Hitler's views on genocide?

I am very intolerant of those who view paedophilia as a desirable activity. Does that make me a bigot?

I really do wonder whether English is the first language of some of these nutters.

FFS.

Re: Coalition For Marriage : Sat Jun 02, 2012 7:17 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

I am not a bigot, but I do like bigos.

Meanwhile can I remind kirkstaller that he's forgotten (again) to answer any of the questions I put? Just so he doesn't have to go too far back in the thread?

Oh, and love the "bigot" straw man. Fantastic. Sadly though, back on this planet, a bigot is indeed a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his own. However, only an utter idiot, or a troll, would extract from that the proposition that unless I am tolerant of EVERY idea other than my own, I am a bigot. That really is batshit loony crazy howling barking mad.

So then, would I be a bigot because I was intolerant of Hitler's views on genocide?

I am very intolerant of those who view paedophilia as a desirable activity. Does that make me a bigot?

I really do wonder whether English is the first language of some of these nutters.


FFS.

Ajw71 & Dally wrote:

Que?

Re: Coalition For Marriage : Sat Jun 02, 2012 9:05 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

What a pisspoor tactic. What you do is ignore every question, and you hope it will be submerged and your swerve not noticed, or forgotten.

Now, and for the second time, you innocently ask "What questions"?

As if you didn't know.

They are those questions that YOU READ when I posted them, and consciously decided it was best to swerve. Those questions.

And now you have an even more pathetic swerve, you no doubt "can't be be bothered" or "haven't the time" to look back in the thread for them.

You've been rumbled, pal. There is only ONE reason you have not answered and that is the questions defeat you so you choose to pretend they never happened. Well done.

I'm afraid I'm not going to trawl through ~90 pages of debate to find your questions. I apologise for not addressing them the first time around, although the fact I didn't respond causes me to believe they were the same as questions asked by other posters.

If you really want specific questions answering then I suggest you repeat them here in plain English and I will respond by COP tomorrow.

Er, or else god never did intercede in any of the OT fairytales, and the reason we never see god interceding nowadays is not because he's (for reasons you don't explain) changed his rather erratic game plan, but because he doesn't exist.

God doesn't intercede now because he has addressed the problem of sin by sending his son Jesus Christ.

You are quite correct in that he has not intervened since the OT. All you need to get your head around now is that he never did during OT times either, and as Occam would explain why that is.

Your unequivocal loyalty to such a razor is your downfall. You will no doubt be well aware of the many times Occam has got things wrong.

This is in need of explanation. God doesn't intervene. But in your case, he did, to the extent of a one-to-one chat with JC, which is why you are where you are. You need to explain how that is not "intervention". Or did he decide never to interfere with the rest of humanity, but made a single exception in your case?

This is not intervention. He has not materially changed the world like he did in the OT. I'm surprised that such an 'enlightened' person can't see the difference between world-changing acts such as sending a plague of locusts and flooding the world, and his contribution to a fruitful spiritual relationship with one of his followers.

Can i just point out to kirkstaller and his apologists and others objecting to one sided name calling that this here is kirkstaller calling tb "CRAZY". Not very Christian, IMHO.

Can you develop that point please? Why is call someone crazy un-Christian?

Explain that to me. You are saying that you sought a relationship with JC, and so he popped round? I would suggest that your god or his son personally visiting one of his sinners is the clearest intervention in human affairs there could be. How is personally meeting a deity, and thus knowing, as opposed to believeing, they exist, not intervention?

It is not intervening because the world has not been materially changed.

Do you realise how much you sound like a child screaming "it's not fair, it's not fair, why didn't God visit me???"

If you are open to such a relationship then it will happen.

Until I was in my early teens I had been brainwashed into all this religious bullshit and so was a firm believer. Why did JC pass up on the opportunity of popping round to mine, then, while he had the chance? (Knowing in advance, as he does, that if he did. I would forever be saved, but if he didn't, I was a goner? Not very fair that. Why did he choose to intervene to save your bigoted ass but leave me to rot in hell?

I don't believe you were a firm believer.