No, Christianity does not say that, YOU say that. For every believer, there is one version of what happens in the afterlife. Also, how can you be certain, following that logic that the mother of the poster above you actually trusted god? Exactly, you can't. Therefore, do not assume.

Thank you for your lack of intellectual effort to even understand the article.

What relevance does your post have to the topic at hand at all? None. If you want to rant about the Catholic church, maybe you should do it in a post instead of attacking people randomly who attempt to after all, have a civil discussion with us.

I could debunk most of your statements here because so much of it is unfounded or just subjectively biased, but I won't really bother. One thing that I will ask you to do though is to stop that freaking militant attitude. To me, you come across as just as ignorant and insecure in your belief that religion is wrong as you claim religious to be.

Right, so I wish to comment a b it on what's being written here seeing it is after all, MY topic. I wish to be as clear as possible and therefore my arguments will be broken down in numbers, seeing a lot of points are being raised.

1. I agree with that tolerance and acceptance are two different things.
1a. But I still believe there is a confusion going on especially the way Petit Sourice attempts to frame tolerance and acceptance in that
1b. Tolerance and acceptance are not related to consequences of behavior, but rather attitudes towards behavior.
2. I would define tolerance as still disagreeing with behavior but tolerates its existence among others but acceptance is agreement of behavior.
2a. In a real life scenario this would mean that when it for example comes to gay marriage, a tolerant Christian would not agree with that gays want to be married and do get married, but would not attempt to stop the behavior among others by for example preaching against gay marriage, whereas an accepting Christian would encourage the behavior.
2b. Saying that you help for example women who chose to have abortion after their abortion but you still preach against abortion is not tolerant to me, but rather hypocritical behavior. db0 covered that part already in a previous post: http://www.antichristian-phenomenon.com/db0/your-...
2c. This therefore goes back to how tolerance and acceptance are attitudes towards behavior rather than attitudes towards consequences of behavior.
2d. Many parents for example disencourage the use of tobacco among their children but they will still provide with medical support of their children would contract a disease in relation to tobacco use.
3. Therefore, it ss not about the morality of the issues per se.
3a. However, people who may find for example gay marriage immoral are probably also more likely to be anti-gay and ergo also intolerant of anything gay such as gay marriage.
4. The validity of the Bible and how it denotes certain groups is therefore irrelevant as
4a. the Bible as a source of accepted* human behavior is often highly contradictory.
4b. The Bible can therefore not be seen as a valid source by itself, since it also highly depends on the attitudes of the believer.
4c. There is a tendency among believers to support certain aspects of the Bible to support their own ideas of accepted human behavior, where those who may for instance behave intolerant against gays are more likely to support and use passages found within the Bible that denotes homosexuality as unaccepted.
5. To conclude, I think that your definitions lack clarity and this lack of clarity weakens your arguments.

*There is a difference between accepted human behavior and immoral behavior as immoral behavior may still be accepted depending on the social context in which it is situated. For example, in the boxing ring, it is accepted that the boxers can and should use a certain level of violence against each other that would in all other instances in society most likely be considered physical abuse.

Well, the side effects of assuming god loves all is tolerance and acceptance since only god is capable of passing judgement on people.

I agree with you that people who bring up the argument that "only god loves group X" are usually just projecting their own ideas into the idea of god. Well, it goes back to the idea that god is created in man's image than the other way around.

What db0 said. Also, many esoteric movements often emphasize the growth of mankind as a whole, such as Wicca.

Sources, please?

Err, like more than half of my post disappeared. Sigh. To sum it all up: I agree with you that too much blame is put on Whedon and too little on the societal structures that exist within the Western society. At least Whedon tries, as opposed to all other [insert name of random director of television series here].

Because I mean, if the OP claims that he longer is a nice guy, then what is he, if he further claims there are basically only two masculine gender stereotypes (douche and nice guy)? Quite a pretentious statement to make.

Definitely agree with you that it's not that simple. It is important to separate Joss Whedon and the societal structures he unconsciously help to maintain. As has been proven in many anthropology studies now, even when attempts are made to change a structure about say gender or race, the end result still comes out supporting the existing ones.

I honestly don't agree with you. SD got horrible values and are terribly conservative in all areas. They prefer the nuclear family with women staying home and men working, they consider homosexuals to be "sick" and so on. The only difference to SD and KD is that SD focuses on immigration as an issue, whereas KD as a whole tries to promote conservative Christian values. SD are just an ounce worse in my book because SD politics do not solve ANYTHING. At least KD tries to make no such claims, either you are a conservative Christian and agree with them or you don't. All of their suggestions to solve immigration try to solve the symptom, never the underlying cause.

You see, the problem isn't migration per se, nor the amount of asylum seekers. The amount of migrants Sweden received over the past years have drastically decreased. The problem is that migrants find it very hard to make a living and not everyone can start their own pizza restaurant or run their own shop. Furthermore, migrants are dumped to live in the same areas with very poor living space and poor social security. The problem is ergo how the government deals with migration - i.e. people become unhappy with their life situation and that's when it goes bad.

Add to the general media attention only focusing on "migration gone bad", and people will automatically get a flawed perception. What about all those migrants who work very hard for their citizenship and really pull their weight? We never heard about those stories, only those who fail because media never pays attention to when things actually work since that is the norm - it is expected to work.

Lastly, I'm not a nationalist, I don't believe in nor support nationalist values. I find the whole idea of a national Sweden pointless because Sweden is already so culturally diverse even if you remove all migrants from outside Europe that saying that something is typically Swedish becomes kind of pointless - because you are doing just that, stereotyping. Swedish families celebrate Christmas their own ways, not all celebrate Easter and so on. Nationalism only works if you believe in and support those values presented but it's just a general blindfold to create a sense of unity with the state. What says that a Muslim cannot support Swedish values? Many Muslims find for example Midsummer celebrations very exotic because it's so different from anything they experienced (and honestly, how silly can it not be when grown men and women jump around the maypole singing "Små grodorna"?).