Why not just use the same definition as everyone else, clown boy?
[quote]extol7extol wrote:
I hope I’ve shown to all reading this thread that vroom is a hypocrite.
[/quote]
Vroom’s right dumbass, read a dictionary.
hypocrite- n. one who professes beliefs and opinions he does not hold
You said;
[quote]If it is intolerant to say that only one religion is true and that all other religions are false, then the Christian faith cannot be more intolerant.[/quote](emphasis mine)
And I replied, that this does not represent intolerance and you are confused. To this you replied you were not confused and then later said:
and
[quote]Read definition 2a yet again:
2a : sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one’s own[/quote]
So, either the first (extolling one’s belief over others) definition, the second (abstinence from physical force) definition, or third (sympathy and indulgence) definition is the true definition. In which case, you can believe either the first, second, or third, but since you claimed all three you must be professing beliefs you do not hold.
This is one dumbass argument.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
This is one dumbass argument.[/quote]
You are intolerant of dumbass arguments ?!
[quote]Dr. Stig wrote:
Professor X wrote:
This is one dumbass argument.
You are intolerant of dumbass arguments ?![/quote]
Actually, by definition, I reject dumbass arguments so in some small way I may be intolerant. However, I do not want to kill dumbasses myself because I do not have the time. Therefore, I am tolerant of them.
I don’t know Prof, according to definition 2a, subsection i, misused form f, applicaton 23b.94, on tuesdays, you might be intolerant of tolerance.
Extol, did I get that right?
Extol. You started your first post by saying “If it is intolerant…”
Well, it isn’t. Therefore, the rest of your argument needn’t follow.
The arguments against Christian views of the afterlife have nothing to do with tolerance and everything to do with compassion.
Of course, “pure tolerance” is, and always has been, shortsighted.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Actually, by definition, I reject dumbass arguments so in some small way I may be intolerant. However, I do not want to kill dumbasses myself because I do not have the time. Therefore, I am tolerant of them.[/quote]
I always figured it was because you were “too hypertrophied”.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
This is one dumbass argument.[/quote]
That’s an asinine assertion not an argument.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
Vroom’s right dumbass, read a
dictionary.[/quote]
vroom asked me why I did not use the same definition that everyone else uses. By what you state above you obviously agree. But then I have a question for you and vroom:
Why don’t you use the primary definition that Merriam-Webster uses (i.e., 2a), rather than the secondary definition? Is not the definition that is listed first the more common (at least according to Merriam-Webster)?
Of course, the reason why you would not use definition 2a is because definition 2b allows you to talk about a specific kind of tolerance. If you used 2a you would confuse things. Right? If so, the reason I did not use defintion 2b is probably the same reason you and vroom do not use definition 2a.
2a : sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one’s own 2b : the act of allowing something : TOLERATION
So, on the contrary lucasa, it is YOU who needs to read the dictionary in hopes (possibly futile)that you will see that the definition I was using is the PRIMARY (i.e., 2a) DEFINITION. Your’s and vroom’s is secondary (i.e., 2b). Get a clue.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
hypocrite- n. one who professes beliefs and opinions he does not hold
You said;
If it is intolerant to say that only one religion is true and that all other religions are false, then the Christian faith cannot be more intolerant.(emphasis mine)
And I replied, that this does not represent intolerance and you are confused.[/quote]
It may not represent intolerance to you but it does for many people. Thus, I am not confused, but rather you are ignorant of the fact that many people find the Christian faith intolerant.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
To this you replied you were not confused and then later said:
I am definitely for tolerating others voicing their different ideas in the sense of not trying to stop them with physical force (i.e., murder or sending a suicide bomber in their direction).
and
Read definition 2a yet again:
2a : sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one’s own
So, either the first (extolling one’s belief over others) definition, the second (abstinence from physical force) definition, or third (sympathy and indulgence) definition is the true definition. In which case, you can believe either the first, second, or third, but since you claimed all three you must be professing beliefs you do not hold.[/quote]
“[E]xtolling one’s belief over others” is an example of INTOLERANCE towards those who do not believe like you. I hold to that belief. I hold to the first definition.
“[A]bstinence from physical force” is an example of TOLERANCE. You quoted my statement about this kind of tolerance. I hold to that belief. I hold to the second definition also.
To show “[S]ympathy and indulgence” towards beliefs contrary to one’s own is an example of TOLERANCE. I do not hold to that belief. I do not hold to the third definition, nor did I ever “profess” or “claim” to.
I not only extol my Christian beliefs over those of antichristian beliefs, I repudiate and abominate such antichristian beliefs. All antichristian beliefs (and those who hold to these beliefs) are dung. I do not have tolerance, I do not sympathize, or have a “mutual respect for” those who believe in antichristian dung.
In sum, I believe the first, second, but not the third. I never claimed to believe the third definition (i.e, the antichristian, unbiblical, spineless, sympathizing definition of tolerance).
Do you get it now lucasa? Do you need to borrow vroom’s light bulb in order to illuminate that brain of yours? Yeah sure. THAT’S gonna help. Maybe Professor X can help you out. Nope. He can’t help you either for he is a Professor of Asininity. A professional moron. Evidently he teaches nonsense for a living(and makes empty-headed assertions to boot).
Hey Professor X, let me hear your irrefutable arguments that this is a “dumbass” thread.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
Extol. You started your first post by saying “If it is intolerant…”
Well, it isn’t. Therefore, the rest of your argument needn’t follow.[/quote]
It isn’t to you, but it IS TO MANY. Therefore, the rest of my argument does need to follow. It needs to follow, not for you, but for those who do deem it as intolerant.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
The arguments against Christian views of the afterlife have nothing to do with tolerance and everything to do with compassion.
[/quote]
One Christian view of the afterlife is this:
All for whom Jesus Christ did not die will live eternally in the pit of Hell and will be eternally tormented for their sins. Souls who are tormented in the next life will never suffer enough to even begin to pay for as much as one sin. Scripture rejects the lie that souls in Hell cease to exist or cease to be tormented, as this is a denial that offending the infinitely holy God is an infinite crime deserving of an infinite punishment.
Scripture also rejects the lie of Purgatory as well as the lie that those who perish denying the doctrines of the gospel will finally accept them in heaven. [Deu 32:22,41; Psa 9:17; Pro 27:20; Isa 33:14; Dan 12:2; Mat 3:12; 5:22; 7:21-23; 10:28; 11:22-24; 13:41-42; 25:30,46; Mar 9:42-48; Luk 16:23-24,26; Joh 3:36; 10:11,26; 12:48; Rom 2:5-9; 6:23; Gal 3:10; 2Th 1:5-9; Heb 10:26-27; 2Pe 3:7; Jud 6-7; Rev 14:9-11; 19:2-3; 20:14-15]
Nephorm, since you said that arguments against a view like the one stated above has NOTHING to do with tolerance then would you be tolerant or intolerant of the above statement? Do you say that the doctrine stated above is not compassionate? You’re right.
God is definitely not showing compassion here. Instead He is showing holy hatred and just wrath. Why? Because there is no atonement for them. There has been no Savior provided for them to deliver them from the coming wrath (1 Thessalonians 1:10). But since Christ endured wrath IN THE STEAD of certain sinners–and thus there is an atonement, and they do have a Savior provided for them-- they will be shown compassion:
All for whom Jesus Christ died will live eternally in Heaven in perfect fellowship with God, as He promised them. The final state of the Church will be eternal glory with her King and Husband. He will wipe every tear from her eyes and will entirely remove all indwelling sin from her. She will worship Him in the presence of His visible glory for all eternity. [Psa 49:15; 116:8; Isa 25:8; Dan 12:2; Mat 19:29; 25:34,46; Luk 18:29-30; Joh 3:15-16; 3:36; 4:14; 6: 40,47,54; 10:28; 14:2-3; 17:2-3; Rom 2:7; 6:22-23; 8:30; 1Co 15:53-54; Gal 6:8; Phi 3:20-21; Col 3:4; Tit 1:2; 2:13; 3:7; 1Pe 1:4; 2Pe 3:13; 1Jo 2:25,28; 3:2; Rev 14:1-5; 21:2-4,22-27; 22:1-5]
[quote]extol7extol wrote:
All antichristian beliefs (and those who hold to these beliefs) are dung.[/quote]
So I’m dung because I’m an atheist?
Wow… that makes me sad. You hurt my feeling.
PS Learn how to cuss. It’s not “dung”, it’s “shit”.
[quote]extol7extol wrote:
Hey Professor X, let me hear your irrefutable arguments that this is a “dumbass” thread.
[/quote]
Psssst, hey genius. Yeah, you. Typing that this is a dumbass thread is not an argument. It is a statement. It could even be described as an opinion, even though I doubt anyone but you is taking this thread seriously. However, you superior intellect, you…it not an “argument”.
Why is it that all of the self proclaimed “Christians” on this board seem to be mentally unbalanced. Is this some kind of conspiracy, or is it just the internet at its finest?
Every other thread on this board seems to be some no doubt well-meaning nutter harassing people, this thread included.
[quote]The Beast wrote:
Why is it that all of the self proclaimed “Christians” on this board seem to be mentally unbalanced. Is this some kind of conspiracy, or is it just the internet at its finest?
Every other thread on this board seems to be some no doubt well-meaning nutter harassing people, this thread included.[/quote]
Why is it that this one mentally unbalanced conspiracy theorizer has come to harass me on my own thread? This nutter complains of those who are harassing others, while at the same time harassing me. What a hypocritical moron he is.
[quote]extol7extol wrote:
Why don’t you use the primary definition that Merriam-Webster uses (i.e., 2a), rather than the secondary definition? Is not the definition that is listed first the more common (at least according to Merriam-Webster)?[/quote]
The primary definition?
Primary- 1. First or highest in rank, quality, or importance; principal.
2. Being or standing first in a list, series, or sequence.
Of course the reason you look past the primary definition is because Prof. X is right.
-
Your petty insults are what is truly futile.
-
Neither definition is the primary definition, thus the “2”.
-
As I’ve said twice now, you said “if”. I’ll say it again (last time) that’s an incomplete definition (thus definition 1, 2a, 2b, and other iterations) and a misrepresentation of both the word intolerance and the group (or any group) you choose to describe it with. You are the one limiting the definition to “2a” when all the definitions truly represent intolerance. I’ve never indulged in or sympathized with lots of things like pregnancy or euthanasia, that doesn’t mean I’m intolerant of them.
Many people? The majority? Of what population? According to whom? Or is this only true in your own head?
Um…the third is definition 2a.
Nope, I’ll admit it, I don’t get it. Of course, since I don’t get it, I can’t tell if you’re right. You’ll have to go elsewhere in order to determine whether you’re right or not.
It’s an accurate assesssment TO MANY.
[quote]extol7extol wrote:
The Beast wrote:
Why is it that all of the self proclaimed “Christians” on this board seem to be mentally unbalanced. Is this some kind of conspiracy, or is it just the internet at its finest?
Every other thread on this board seems to be some no doubt well-meaning nutter harassing people, this thread included.
Why is it that this one mentally unbalanced conspiracy theorizer has come to harass me on my own thread? This nutter complains of those who are harassing others, while at the same time harassing me. What a hypocritical moron he is.[/quote]
I was making an observation and using humour. I am a Christian and am tired of no doubt well-meaning individuals posting bizarre threads on boards such as these that serve only to irritate and upset people.
I am pretty sure that you mean well, but throwing endless quotes and generally being aggressive serves no purpose other than to piss people off.
Lucasa, good call dude, I was looking at the “primary definition” thing and laughing my ass off. I love it when the illiterate try to use randomly chosen snippets from a dictionary to educate those that can actually read.
Anyway, like Beast said, I’m starting to see a correlation, but I’m not going to voice it or I’ll feed their persecution complex.
[quote]
extol7extol wrote:
I hope I’ve shown to all reading this thread that vroom is a hypocrite.
…[/quote]
Who isn’t?
He is also on the correct side of this clusterfuck of an argument.
Hmmmmmm…