Recently on another thread the term “bigot� has been used frequently to describe Christian views on homosexuality being a sin. Per Merriam-Webster’s dictionary a bigot is:
A person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
My question is not about using this or any other derogatory term against another person since that should not be done, serves no purpose in a debate and is against the rules. My question is:
If a person, Christian or non-Christian expresses an opinion that homosexuality is a sin (or if you don’t believe in the concept of sin replace the word with morally wrong); does that opinion constitute a hatred of the person, the action or neither one? Does that opinion constitute intolerance of the person, the action or neither? Should Christians or non-Christians who do not support homosexuality be required to show tolerance toward the person? What about the action?
So we all can try to use the same definitions for the term, Merriam-Webster defines tolerance as:
A: sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own
B: the act of allowing something
If you say “yes� it constitutes hatred please list which one(s) it is toward and please explain why you believe it constitutes hatred. The same goes if you answer “yes� to intolerance.
If you answer “no� please explain why it doesn’t.
Just so we are clear, I am not labeling anyone as a bigot, hateful or intolerant or any other derogatory term. This is my first time to start a topic, so if I have left something out or could have worded my question better let me know.
Thanks.
Is it hateful and intolerant to disagree?
Moderator: Moderators
-
charles_hamm
- Guru
- Posts: 1043
- Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 3:30 pm
- Location: Houston, Texas
Is it hateful and intolerant to disagree?
Post #1Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important.- C.S. Lewis
-
Goat
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24999
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 207 times
Post #131
czyz wrote: Bust Nak wrote...
No, that is a transitory time period. Once a new life is detected it has the rights afforded under the Constitution in my opinion.But we do err on the side of innocence and life. That's why we selected 24 weeks as the limit for abortion based on what we know about fetal development.
However, that is NOT the opinion of the Supreme court. Their opinion trumps yours.. when it comes to constitutional issues.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�
Steven Novella
Steven Novella
-
Bust Nak
- Savant
- Posts: 9856
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
- Location: Planet Earth
- Has thanked: 189 times
- Been thanked: 266 times
Post #133
Well wouldn't you say putting the limit towards the beginning of the transitory time period rather than towards the end of the period, qualify as erring on the side of innocence and life?czyz wrote: No, that is a transitory time period.
But the egg and sperm are just as alive as the zygote, the zygote is just as alive as the blastocyst, the blastocyst just as alive as the embryo and so on. Choosing a limit based on heart beat is no less arbitrary than choosing a limit based on neural development.Once a new life is detected it has the rights afforded under the Constitution in my opinion.
