The 100 Greatest Quotes from Fundamentalist Christian Chat Rooms

Originally posted by Devil King
tol·er·ate (tŏl'ə-rât'😉
tr.v., -at·ed, -at·ing, -ates.
[b]To allow without prohibiting or opposing; permit.
To recognize and respect (the rights, beliefs, or practices of others).
To put up with; endure. See synonyms at bear.

2 of these things imply emparting acceptance, allowing it based on their own perspective, which does come from a sense of entitlement and authority. Why would one ask for permission from one who holds no authority?

Let me offer this: when a gay marriage or rights vote is presented to people, they always fail. Why is that? Because the proposal is presented as asking for permission. How many parents are out there wishing their kids dressed like themselves or didn't smoke pot or had uninfluential friends? This, as far as gays are concerned, is the same principle. As long as the idea is presented as permission slip needing a signature, the permission will always be provided based on the ideas of the person asked. I'm willing to bet people who go into the booth and cast that vote based on their own sense of self-importance is walking out thinking they just allowed someone the right to exist, which is an intoxicating notion of empowerment. [/B]

Could it also be the personal management of thought is implemented solely within the mind of the "tolerater" and is exclusive to a feeling of superiority and disdain?

Originally posted by chickenlover98
but chuck norris is in every topic. learn your history

Yeah, Mike Huckabee for President.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Could it also be the personal management of thought is implemented solely within the mind of the "tolerater" and is exclusive to a feeling of superiority and disdain?

a person has every right to assume themselve the bastion of toleration, but not the actual exercisement of that notion when it comes to others.

Originally posted by Devil King
a person has every right to assume themselve the bastion of toleration, but not the actual exercisement of that notion when it comes to others.

Yes they do; especially when it comes to others. Universal tolerance, in my opinion, is the next in humanity. We have yet to obtain universal tolerance...which, btw, I have been trying to get across that tolerating someone is not necessarily thinking you are superior to them.

I LOVED your use of the word "bastion". I was thinking of Access Control lists when I said, "personal management of thought is implemented solely within the mind". A bastion (specifically, a bastion host firewall) is perfectly in line with my thought process because that is a type of firewall. Man...it is abusrd how that worked out.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yes they do; especially when it comes to others. Universal tolerance, in my opinion, is the next in humanity. We have yet to obtain universal tolerance...which, btw, I have been trying to get across that tolerating someone is not necessarily thinking you are superior to them.

I LOVED your use of the word "bastion". I was thinking of Access Control lists when I said, "personal management of thought is implemented solely within the mind". A bastion (specifically, a bastion host firewall) is perfectly in line with my thought process because that is a type of firewall. Man...it is abusrd how that worked out.

universal toleration is practically a contradiction in terms.

Originally posted by Devil King
Yeah, Mike Huckabee for President.

Originally posted by chickenlover98
least he has a sense of humor. and chuck norris 😆 😆 😆

...pssst....my post about Chuck....

Originally posted by Devil King
universal toleration is practically a contradiction in terms.

By your definition, yes.

By this definition, no:

"Tolerance with respect to the actions and beliefs of others"

The other ones listed that fit my use have more to do with religion, but they are very close to what I am using the word for.

Originally posted by dadudemon
but they are very close to what I am using the word for.

Then we can all assume you realize there is no "I" in "we" or "us". It comes as no suprise to me that you feel you speak for everyone.

Originally posted by chickenlover98
least he has a sense of humor. and chuck norris 😆 😆 😆

😆...and nothing else.

Originally posted by Devil King
Then we can all assume you realize there is no "I" in "we" or "us". It comes as no suprise to me that you feel you speak for everyone.

😆...and nothing else.

Originally posted by Devil King
Then we can all assume you realize there is no "I" in "we" or "us". It comes as no suprise to me that you feel you speak for everyone.

😆...and nothing else.

I'm willing to bet people who go into the booth and cast that vote based on their own sense of self-importance is walking out thinking they just allowed someone the right to exist, which is an intoxicating notion of empowerment.

To answer the question--and to rebutt your claim--no, the woman does not. She thinks, "I'm pregnant; whoops. Better get this taken care of because I wouldn't want a kid interfering with my life."

Similarly, the person against homosexual marriage probably thinks something along the lines of, "Homosexual marriage is wrong. I don't think it should be allowed. I should vote 'no.'"

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
First of all, I'm thinking that you're thinking a little too deeply into the issue. Secondly, now that my thread is thoroughly derailed, does the pro-choice advocate feel the same way when she chooses not to abort a fetus? Does she think, "I literally hold the power of life and death over this fetus. I am God to it. Its existence is solely based on my good pleasure"?

To answer the question--and to rebutt your claim--no, the woman does not. She thinks, "I'm pregnant; whoops. Better get this taken care of because I wouldn't want a kid interfering with my life."

Similarly, the person against homosexual marriage probably thinks something along the lines of, "Homosexual marriage is wrong. I don't think it should be allowed. I should vote 'no.'"

If you didn't derail the thread, then there is no need for apologies. Also, I was referring to the Captain. Anyway, I am having a lovely time trolling the **** out of Facebook with the spiel I posted.

I am also trying to explain how it is the LORD's will that blacks be enslaved and how the Emancipation Proclamation goes against His divine plan.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
First of all, I'm thinking that you're thinking a little too deeply into the issue. Secondly, now that my thread is thoroughly derailed, does the pro-choice advocate feel the same way when she chooses not to abort a fetus? Does she think, "I literally hold the power of life and death over this fetus. I am God to it. Its existence is solely based on my good pleasure"?

To answer the question--and to rebutt your claim--no, the woman does not. She thinks, "I'm pregnant; whoops. Better get this taken care of because I wouldn't want a kid interfering with my life."

Similarly, the person against homosexual marriage probably thinks something along the lines of, "Homosexual marriage is wrong. I don't think it should be allowed. I should vote 'no.'"

First, you always assume everyone else is thinking too deeply into your perspective. Second, I doubt that gay rihts have anything to do with life or death, unless we assume that a person is voting to kill gay people, rather than granting them the rights the voter themselves think they're entitled to and are in a position to bestow on others.

Originally posted by Devil King
Then we can all assume you realize there is no "I" in "we" or "us". It comes as no suprise to me that you feel you speak for everyone.

I agree that my idea that the next step in human civilization is universal tolerance is just that...my idea. You obviously adhere to only one definition of the word "tolerance" and only one application of the word tolerance. You personify the very thing you are defining....Tolerance comes served with a sense of superiority and disdain.

Originally posted by Devil King
First, you always assume everyone else is thinking too deeply into your perspective. Second, I doubt that gay rihts have anything to do with life or death, unless we assume that a person is voting to kill gay people, rather than granting them the rights the voter themselves think they're entitled to and are in a position to bestow on others.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
You missed it ("it" being the point).

"the point" being what you meant to express?

That the Cap's wrong because he's assigning false motive.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
That the Cap's wrong because he's assigning false motive.

No, you misunderstood me. I was more defining what the "it" in your previous post was and asking for your confirmation than inquiring about the specifics.

Ah. Well, yes, then.