|
Post by DC-Fan on Feb 10, 2019 7:14:45 GMT
They don't need to explain their position. But if they join a church that advocates bigotry and they don't explain their position, then we not only have the right to conclude but we also should conclude that they support the church's bigotry. And attacking someone for their choice of religion is actually bigotry. So do you think Ellen Page should explain herself? No, nothing wrong with Page calling out Pratt for being a bigot. It isn't bigotry to call out someone for being a bigot.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Feb 10, 2019 7:20:15 GMT
And attacking someone for their choice of religion is actually bigotry. So do you think Ellen Page should explain herself? No, nothing wrong with Page calling out Pratt for being a bigot. It isn't bigotry to call out someone for being a bigot. Except Page is not attacking Pratt for being a bigot... since he hasn't done anything that makes him a bigot. She's attacking him for his choice of religion... which goes against the first amendment of religious freedom. Page has shown prejudice against Pratt based solely on his religion, and that's bigotry.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Feb 10, 2019 7:39:30 GMT
No, nothing wrong with Page calling out Pratt for being a bigot. It isn't bigotry to call out someone for being a bigot. Except Page is not attacking Pratt for being a bigot... since he hasn't done anything that makes him a bigot. Pratt joined a church that advocates bigotry. That's what Page is calling out Pratt for. Nothing wrong with that. And like I said in my previous post, it isn't bigotry to call out someone for being a bigot.
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Feb 10, 2019 9:17:02 GMT
Except Page is not attacking Pratt for being a bigot... since he hasn't done anything that makes him a bigot. Pratt joined a church that advocates bigotry. That's what Page is calling out Pratt for. Nothing wrong with that. And like I said in my previous post, it isn't bigotry to call out someone for being a bigot. Except Pratt did nothing bigoted. Page did. So you're basically defending bigotry.
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Feb 10, 2019 9:54:44 GMT
Due to the transitive nature of church ideal then you must have those same Ideals. I can tell my Mom she's not a racist? I mean she goes to a Church that says that all Races are equal and should be loved equally. So it doesn't matter that me and my Brother at age 20ish had to threaten to cut ties with her for using Racial Slurs? It doesn't matter that she won't let black person into her house unless they were there to fix something. (Ie in her employ/subservient) It doesn't matter that she thinks that Black people should have to take tests to vote, etc. She attends a church that is racial inclusive so therefore she has to believe in racial inclusivity. I'm not saying this Church is/isn't anti-LGBTQ (although if you keep reading by definition most Christian Churches that follow the bible as 100% are technically all anti-LGBTQ) or Pratt is/isn't. Just saying that church ideals doesn't always equal personal beliefs. If he turns out to be anti-LGBTQ then he will deserve the backlash he gets IMHO. To be honest though any Church that believes that the Bible is 100% correct and should be followed accordingly is by definition anti-LGBTQ. God to Moses on Homosexuality: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Leviticus 20-13 Abomination is translated from Hebrew meaning loathsome, hateful, vile and the punishment is to kill the person the crime is so vile. This is the book of laws here. This isn't a suggestion. If you have gay sex you should be killed. Pretty Anti-LGBTQ. Some Christians try to say that they don't have to follow the Levitcus because they just have to follow the New Testament. The Old Testament is just for the Jews. There are two problems with this. In Romans in NT chapter 1, Paul goes into detail about how God's Wrath is raised by "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." - Romans 1:27 The other problem with that is Christ Said in Mathew 5:16-19 "17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Pretty straightforward Christ wanted you to follow the 613 commandments of the bible. Now what modern churches do to nix the anti-shrimp and sacrificing laws of the old testament but keep the anti-gay ones they take this tact. Christ was talking to Jews when he preached. So not all the Commandments were meant for non-Jews. This splits the Laws in the Old Testament into 3 different Categories: Ceremonial, Judicial, and Moral. Ceremonial were to separate Jews from those around them. Think Burnt offerings/sacrificing, circumcision, and dietary restrictions. Moral/Judicial by modern Christians are tied together. One deals with Morals behind the Legalities. Meaning a Judicial Law might deal with what is to be done if a person is gored by another man's Ox, but the Moral Laws say why you should be taken care of the gored person. Now what do you think people consider the sexual laws of Leviticus is put in? That's right the Moral Laws. Meaning those laws aren't dictated by a time period or to the jews specifically. They are timeless and to be followed now. Whereas the Ceremonial Law of circumcision and not eating shrimp was only meant for Jews in the ancient world to separate themselves from Gentiles. There are very few churches don't take this tact. So if anybody is a member of any Church that follows the bible and interprets the bible this way (which again most churches do separate Leviticus into Ceremonial vs Moral/Judicial Law including Baptist, Pentecostal, Catholic, Methodist, and Lutheran) then if you are a member of any Christian church that believes this way it is anti-LGBTQ. IF this is the case all PEOPLE that go to one of these churches are anti-LGBTQ because their church by definition is anti-LGBTQ. This isn't a slippery slope type argument here. I just think it should be fair that if this church and church goers are condemned to being Anti-LGBTQ then all should. There are exceptions churches that say that anti-gay laws go into the Ceremonial Laws or go with the tact that we shouldn't follow Jewish Law. These groups/churches have to do some mental gymnastics but it's possible. I honestly shouldn't know this much, but I was raised in it. (And was asked not to come back to 2 churches when I was in my teens because I liked to ask questions) Since then I have studied religion as part of my degree in college. Barring weddings and funerals I don't go into Churches. My feet burn when I enter
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Feb 10, 2019 14:40:26 GMT
I heard that Chris Pratt won't even set foot in any establishment that serves gay people.
Oh wait, that is someone in this thread who is calling Chris Pratt a bigot.
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Feb 10, 2019 14:45:10 GMT
I heard that Chris Pratt won't even set foot in any establishment that serves gay people. Oh wait, that is someone in this thread who is calling Chris Pratt a bigot. Good God, please tell me you are joking.
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Feb 10, 2019 14:59:31 GMT
Not surprised that crazy ass Kanye is part of it.
|
|
|
Post by Grabthar's Hammer on Feb 10, 2019 16:58:02 GMT
Not really. I don't have to conclude to anything. So if someone attends a KKK meeting, you wouldn't conclude that he's a racist? Well by this kind of logic than Chris Pratt isn’t anti-LGBT because he has joked about having a “hot” threesome with Chris Evans and Robert Downey Jr. I can’t imagine an anti-gay person being comfortable enough to make that kind of joke.
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Feb 10, 2019 17:03:54 GMT
So whose the next person from the Guardians of the Galaxy set to be exposed as a indecent human being
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Feb 10, 2019 17:10:48 GMT
Pratt joined a church that advocates bigotry. That's what Page is calling out Pratt for. Nothing wrong with that. And like I said in my previous post, it isn't bigotry to call out someone for being a bigot. Except Pratt did nothing bigoted. Page did. So you're basically defending bigotry. No, Page called out Pratt for being a bigot. Nothing wrong with that because it isn't bigotry to call out someone for being a bigot. Seems that you're the one defending bigotry by defending Pratt for joining a church that advocates bigotry. It would be like defending someone for attending a KKK meeting by saying they did nothing racist. Sure, they didn't do anything but they attended a meeting for an organization that is known for being racist. Likewise, Pratt attended a church that is known for bigotry.
|
|
|
Post by Grabthar's Hammer on Feb 10, 2019 17:19:40 GMT
I also find it incredibly difficult to believe that anybody who would attend is anti-LGBT because the Kardashian-Jenner’s attend and they have a famous transgendered person in their family.
It’s like saying anybody who joins or is in the American military is anti-LGBT because of the transgender ban.
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Feb 10, 2019 17:20:27 GMT
So whose the next person from the Guardians of the Galaxy set to be exposed as a indecent human being ... and will they also be immediately hired by DC!?
|
|
|
Post by seahawksraawk00 on Feb 10, 2019 17:23:25 GMT
Except Pratt did nothing bigoted. Page did. So you're basically defending bigotry. No, Page called out Pratt for being a bigot. Nothing wrong with that because it isn't bigotry to call out someone for being a bigot. Seems that you're the one defending bigotry by defending Pratt for joining a church that advocates bigotry. It would be like defending someone for attending a KKK meeting by saying they did nothing racist. Sure, they didn't do anything but they attended a meeting for an organization that is known for being racist. Likewise, Pratt attended a church that is known for bigotry. God your schtick of repeating your argument verbatim without any context is getting old.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Feb 10, 2019 17:24:31 GMT
Except Pratt did nothing bigoted. Page did. So you're basically defending bigotry. No, Page called out Pratt for being a bigot. Nothing wrong with that because it isn't bigotry to call out someone for being a bigot. Seems that you're the one defending bigotry by defending Pratt for joining a church that advocates bigotry. It would be like defending someone for attending a KKK meeting by saying they did nothing racist. Sure, they didn't do anything but they attended a meeting for an organization that is known for being racist. Likewise, Pratt attended a church that is known for bigotry. Pretty much all religions are known for bigotry though you idiot, also she didn't call him out for being a bigot she called out that his church is "well known" for being anti-lgbtq+ and that he should maybe address that along with everything else he addressed about the church.
You need to actually learn to read, it would help in arguing your point if you could actually comprehend what someone says to you as that way you wont need to copy and paste the exact same responses over and over regardless of how stupid and pointless they are.
I will ask you for a THIRD time, do you feel that all Catholics condone the past bad behaviour of Catholic priest, and are themselves homophobic due to the historically anti-lgbtq+ stance the Catholic church has held? Or does this hold every member to the worst possible standard their choice in religion suggest only apply to Pratt?
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Feb 10, 2019 17:25:32 GMT
I heard that Chris Pratt won't even set foot in any establishment that serves gay people. Oh wait, that is someone in this thread who is calling Chris Pratt a bigot. Good God, please tell me you are joking. No joke. This raging homophobe has stated it repeatedly ... as "proof" that he never went to a specfic bar, because they served gay people.
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Feb 10, 2019 17:33:49 GMT
No, Page called out Pratt for being a bigot. Nothing wrong with that because it isn't bigotry to call out someone for being a bigot. Seems that you're the one defending bigotry by defending Pratt for joining a church that advocates bigotry. It would be like defending someone for attending a KKK meeting by saying they did nothing racist. Sure, they didn't do anything but they attended a meeting for an organization that is known for being racist. Likewise, Pratt attended a church that is known for bigotry. Pretty much all religions are known for bigotry though you idiot, also she didn't call him out for being a bigot she called out that his church is "well known" for being anti-lgbtq+ and that he should maybe address that along with everything else he addressed about the church.
You need to actually learn to read, it would help in arguing your point if you could actually comprehend what someone says to you as that way you wont need to copy and paste the exact same responses over and over regardless of how stupid and pointless they are.
I will ask you for a THIRD time, do you feel that all Catholics condone the past bad behaviour of Catholic priest, and are themselves homophobic due to the historically anti-lgbtq+ stance the Catholic church has held? Or does this hold every member to the worst possible standard their choice in religion suggest only apply to Pratt?
Don't forget that Catholic Church and most Protestant Churches don't allow Women to be Pastors or Priests. Following the verse 1 Tim. 2:11–14. "11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner." This taught in Catholic and most Protestant Churches. By the same transitive nature that a Church's Ideals must be present in the Followers presented by some here then that means every person who is Catholic and most Protestants believe that women are second class citizen's and should be in full submission to men. They are members of Anti-Women Organizations after all so they are Anti-Women themselves.
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Feb 10, 2019 17:35:42 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Vassaggo on Feb 10, 2019 17:39:15 GMT
Good God, please tell me you are joking. No joke. This raging homophobe has stated it repeatedly ... as "proof" that he never went to a specfic bar, because they served gay people. That's insane.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Feb 10, 2019 17:46:53 GMT
And attacking someone for their choice of religion is actually bigotry. So do you think Ellen Page should explain herself? No, nothing wrong with Page calling out Pratt for being a bigot. It isn't bigotry to call out someone for being a bigot. Except he’s not a bigot. Outside of attending this church which isn’t even the same one Page talks about but an offshoot it seems like, name just one instance of bigotry or racism or prejudice or homophobia from Chris Pratt.
|
|