Indiana pizzeria closes after threats

[LibCampFireClub 635]

although accept is in the definition. DERP.

Okay, agreed on that. I noticed the use of the word "accept" after I posted. It just goes to show that just because the name "Websters" appears on the cover, doesn't necessarily mean the content is suck-free.

Better example:

tol·er·ance (tŏl′ər-əns)

n.

1. The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.

[Teddy B 17,251]

Okay, agreed on that. I noticed the use of the word "accept" after I posted. It just goes to show that just because the name "Websters" appears on the cover, doesn't necessarily mean the content is suck-free.

Better example:

tol·er·ance (tŏl′ər-əns)

n.

1. The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.

That's awesome! The first definition really doesn't fit my point of view so let me keep looking until I find someone that agrees with me.

[LibCampFireClub 635]

That's awesome! The first definition really doesn't fit my point of view so let me keep looking until I find someone that agrees with me.

I keep believing that there will be one simple rule book of life that is clear and provide minute by minute mile markers in this life. But, those rosicrucians had other things on the mind.

Edited April 3, 2015 by xxClosedxx

[decocker 7,198]

Okay, agreed on that. I noticed the use of the word "accept" after I posted. It just goes to show that just because the name "Websters" appears on the cover, doesn't necessarily mean the content is suck-free.

Better example:

tol·er·ance (tŏl′ər-əns)

n.

1. The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.

the most imperative words in that definition are "capacity" and "practice". and i don't believe tolerance calls for respecting "the beliefs or practices of others", but it does call for respecting the person who holds the beliefs/practices.

[Teddy B 17,251]

the most imperative words in that definition are "capacity" and "practice". and i don't believe tolerance calls for respecting "the beliefs or practices of others", but it does call for respecting the person who holds the beliefs/practices.

Nope, it absolutely doesn't call for respect. But I do like how he interchanged the word "accept" with the word "recognize" (as if there's a difference) to wash the mud off his face.

[LibCampFireClub 635]

the most imperative words in that definition are "capacity" and "practice". and i don't believe tolerance calls for respecting "the beliefs or practices of others", but it does call for respecting the person who holds the beliefs/practices.

Does that mean you are repenting of previous acts of disrespect and will from here forward seek to show respect to those with whom you disagree? Or maybe it's kinda like watching a little fat kid lick his ice cream really, really slow. The little fat kid won't share, and because of your respect for his beliefs of not sharing, you still respect the hell out of his ice cream cone.

Edited April 3, 2015 by xxClosedxx

[decocker 7,198]

Nope, it absolutely doesn't call for respect. But I do like how he interchanged the word "accept" with the word "recognize" (as if there's a difference) to wash the mud off his face.

being tolerant requires a basic respect for the person you are tolerating - simply because they are a fellow human being. you do not have to respect the nonsense you're tolerating coming from that person, but you have to respect the source. if not, there's no point in practicing tolerance toward that person.

Does that mean you are repenting of previous acts of disrespect and will from here forward seek to show respect to those with whom you disagree? Or maybe it's kinda like watching a little fat kid lick his ice cream really, really slow. The little fat kid won't share, and because of your respect for his beliefs of not sharing, you still respect the hell out of his ice cream cone.

yeah, you've got it all wrong. maybe go back to that odd word "agape" and let it simmer.

Edited April 3, 2015 by val erie

[LibCampFireClub 635]

Is it better to respect both fish and water or choose one over the other? Does one demonstrate respect for choosing fish by trying to breathe water?

[decocker 7,198]

Is it better to respect both fish and water or choose one over the other? Does one demonstrate respect for choosing fish by trying to breathe water?

ok, i see you're done now.

[LibCampFireClub 635]

ok, i see you're done now.

Nope, not yet.

I can show respect to a gay couple or individual, but it doesn't mean I have to suck face with them, or threaten to destroy them.

[Teddy B 17,251]

being tolerant requires a basic respect for the person you are tolerating - simply because they are a fellow human being. you do not have to respect the nonsense you're tolerating coming from that person, but you have to respect the source. if not, there's no point in practicing tolerance toward that person.

I respectfully disagree. There are plenty of people that I have no respect for but tolerate their presence and the silliness that comes along with it. Otherwise they'd be a long line of bodies behind me.

Nope, not yet.

I can show respect to a gay couple or individual, but it doesn't mean I have to suck face with them, or threaten to destroy them.

Bet you'd love to give em a reach around, eh?

[decocker 7,198]

I respectfully disagree. There are plenty of people that I have no respect for but tolerate their presence and the silliness that comes along with it. Otherwise they'd be a long line of bodies behind me.

i don't think we disagree so much as i see the vehicle for tolerance as a basic respect for human life. you're practicing a basic respect for human life via tolerance. same difference, to me.

Nope, not yet.

I can show respect to a gay couple or individual, but it doesn't mean I have to suck face with them, or threaten to destroy them.

i don't think that's been demanded of you, not even suggested.

[Teddy B 17,251]

i don't think we disagree so much as i see the vehicle for tolerance as a basic respect for human life. you're practicing a basic respect for human life via tolerance. same difference, to me.

i don't think that's been demanded of you, not even suggested.

Ok, I get what you're saying and yes it is pretty much the same.

I think that's more wishful thinking on his part than anything.

[LibCampFireClub 635]

i don't think we disagree so much as i see the vehicle for tolerance as a basic respect for human life. you're practicing a basic respect for human life via tolerance. same difference, to me.

i don't think that's been demanded of you, not even suggested.

Here's the deal. If you choose to tolerate a Christian business' right to refuse providing wedding services to a gay couple, does that level of tolerance include the right to threaten their lives, and destroy their business? The answer is currently non-negotiable in the US and the answer is NO. The first amendment provides the right to not be forced and persecuted by fellow Americans for choosing not to participate in activities that offend one's religious sensibilities.

Right now, the left is in full attack mode against ALL Christians, based on what? Based on nothing more than a stupid perception that ALL Christians want to kill or harm gay people. This perception being jumped on by the left wing media is creating a witch hunt lynch mob mentality. It's wrong! it's the same thing as the crowds who continue to chant, "hands up, don't shoot!"

Edited April 3, 2015 by xxClosedxx

[LibCampFireClub 635]

yes, that's called independant. not necessarily by the churches themselves but by outsiders because there is no denomination to call them. i have family that came up in an independant church and the pastor made all the rules. like how long there skirts were allowed to be and no music but music that exhalts god.

the fundamentalist churches i've been to have been entrenched in baptist ideology but each unique in that their pastors added their own special flair. like speaking in tongues (mandatory practice), which i think is pentecostal. but then all the hellfire and suffering of thsouthern baptist strain. good horror movie type stuff.

NO, it's not called independent. It's called non-denominational. Your attempt to reduce this religious affiliation to a definition that you prefer ain't gonna work out too well for ya.

Baptists are a large organized group with most following the directions as dictated by the international Baptist convention. Non-denominational fundamentalists are rooted in a shared theology, that is well-known and documented. Original sin, the fall, Hell and Satan, propitiation, sanctification, biblical hermanuetics, creation, after-life, second coming, with an endless list of more that will vary slightly from church, to church. Pentecostalism is not a part of non-denominational belief.

Secular definitions have their place when it comes to religion, and perhaps the secular perception is that pastors make rules. However, non-denominational "rules" are considered to be the unalterable commandments of the lord god, which are said to be straight from the mouth of god, through men.

Take it for what you will. It's a religion, and it's not for everyone. Those who believe it, believe it fervently.