1. SubscriberFMF
    Main Poster
    This Thread
    Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    29845
    06 Jan '09 10:23
    How can someone argue that this is not hatespeech...

    man and man or woman and woman..this would be biologically unacceptable... Homosexuality is an abomination ... Christians are taught to [...] hate the sin... Non-believers [i.e. people you disagree with] will be eternally separated from God and eternally associated with Satan in hell, wailing and gnashing their teeth for all eternity... nonbelievers, aka atheists, murderers, child-killers, thieves, et al ... only a retard cannot grasp a simple concept that God is a Holy God and cannot accept sin of any form (i.e. your opponents are mentally handicapped)... you and I are not of the same "species" You belong to the God-less who, unless you change your non-believing ways, will inherit the lair of satan and be cast out along with most of humankind... satan, too, is very intelligent and convincing to those who refuse to see God's way (i.e. those who do not share your superstition are evil)... The non-believer [...] will dwell in eternal darkness, conscious for eternity, suffering damnation alongside satan and his demons ...

    The author of this stuff argues that it isn't hatespeech because it is true.

    Does our sincerity and strength of belief absolve us from accusations of hatespeech in the realm of spirituality?
  2. Donationrwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    Royal Oak, MI
    Joined
    09 Sep '01
    Moves
    26187
    06 Jan '09 10:401 edit
    Originally posted by FMF
    How can someone argue that this is [b]not hatespeech...

    man and man or woman and woman..this would be biologically unacceptable... Homosexuality is an abomination ... Christians are taught to [...] hate the sin... Non-believers [i.e. people you disagree with] will be eternally separated from God and eternally associated with Satan in hell, wailing and d strength of belief absolve us from accusations of hatespeech in the realm of spirituality?[/b]
    It seems pretty clear to me. Religious fundamentalism is the last socially accepted form of hate speech.
  3. Standard memberMexico
    Quis custodiet
    ipsos custodes?
    Joined
    16 Feb '03
    Moves
    13400
    06 Jan '09 10:551 edit
    Originally posted by FMF
    How can someone argue that this is not hatespeech...

    man and man or woman and woman..this would be biologically unacceptable... Homosexuality is an abomination ... Christians are taught to [...] hate the sin... Non-believers [i.e. people you disagree with] will be eternally separated from God and eternally associated with Satan in hell, wailing and d strength of belief absolve us from accusations of hatespeech in the realm of spirituality?
    does our sincerity and strength of belief absolve us from accusations of hatespeech in the realm of spirituality?

    I dunno are the Nazi party absolved? Most of them were extremely sincere and convinced they were doing the right thing for humanity. Granted it wasn't always in the realm of spirituality but they spouted surprisingly similar material.
    Ask the same about the crusades, does starting a large scale waste of human life get justified because those who do it believe they are right.
    Or the Militant atheism of Mao and others, again believing they were right and just doing everyone a favor by persecuting and excluding certain minorities.

    My point from these examples being that these people shouldn't be allowed to preach hatred and exclusion, be it of gays, atheists, agnostics, other Christians (which I find really odd) etc, just because they believe they are right. Personally I think they should be stopped, these people have a great power to manipulate small simple communities and they use it extremely irresponsibly.
  4. Joined
    15 Oct '06
    Moves
    10115
    06 Jan '09 20:566 edits
    Originally posted by FMF
    How can someone argue that this is [b]not hatespeech...

    man and man or woman and woman..this would be biologically unacceptable... Homosexuality is an abomination ... Christians are taught to [...] hate the sin... Non-believers [i.e. people you disagree with] will be eternally separated from God and eternally associated with Satan in hell, wailing and d strength of belief absolve us from accusations of hatespeech in the realm of spirituality?
    [/b]While it'd be nice to think that everone would unequivocably recognize it as hatespeech, I'm sure there are many who would not. There'd also be many who would call it hatespeech, be against it, yet support the underlying principles. I remember discussing Christians and homosexuality with someone who categorically denied having a bigoted attitude toward homosexuals despite saying that if there were to be an "openly gay" person in his church, he would feel compelled to confront him about his "sin" because it goes against the will of God. Furthermore, he'd decline to confront others about sins such as greed, gluttony, etc. Of course there wouldn't be any bigotry involved. Being a "bigot" is bad. Furthering the will of God is good and that's all he'd be doing.

    Evidently bigots are bigots because they have the ability invent rationalizations that allow them to be so as to be an "exception".

    The following is particularly fascinating:
    "only a retard cannot grasp a simple concept that God is a Holy God and cannot accept sin of any form (i.e. your opponents are mentally handicapped)... you and I are not of the same "species" You belong to the God-less who, unless you change your non-believing ways, will inherit the lair of satan and be cast out along with most of humankind."

    Like many Christians he likely also believes that man is incapable of stopping from committing sin and that Jesus dying on the cross makes themselves acceptable to God. Evidently homsexuality is the only sin that is not afforded such protection. Of course, they'd deny it.
  5. Standard memberknightmeister
    knightmeister
    Uk
    Joined
    21 Jan '06
    Moves
    443
    06 Jan '09 21:572 edits
    Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
    While it'd be nice to think that everone would unequivocably recognize it as hatespeech, I'm sure there are many who would not. There'd also be many who would call it hatespeech, be against it, yet support the underlying principles. I remember discussing Christians and homosexuality with someone who categorically denied having a bigoted attitude towar he only sin that is not afforded such protection. Of course, they'd deny it.[/b]
    I would unequivocally accept it as hatespeech . Having said this I think you are very skilled at turning any subject round to fit your agenda around Christianity.

    You are right to see it as bigotted but you are wrong about Jesus' sacrifice. Jesus clearly believed that his death was a huge event and was to affect the relationship between man and God . He said his death was to achieve remission of sin , it's there in black and white . He said it - you don't believe it.

    Until you come up with an alternative explanation for Jesus's statements about his death and his subsequent death and ressurection then you have no right to criticise Christianity's explanation. As usual , you knock down but have little of substance to put in it's place.
  6. Donationrwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    Royal Oak, MI
    Joined
    09 Sep '01
    Moves
    26187
    06 Jan '09 22:14
    Originally posted by knightmeister
    I would unequivocally accept it as hatespeech . Having said this I think you are very skilled at turning any subject round to fit your agenda around Christianity.

    You are right to see it as bigotted but you are wrong about Jesus' sacrifice. Jesus clearly believed that his death was a huge event and was to affect the relationship between man and God ...[text shortened]... explanation. As usual , you knock down but have little of substance to put in it's place.
    The alternate explanation is that Jesus never said those things. They are attributed to him by later authors. The whole death and resurrection song and dance is a later fabrication.
  7. Subscriberdivegeester
    reality bites
    variable
    Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86745
    06 Jan '09 22:51
    I have to ask. Did someone actually post that here somewhere or is from some other website?
  8. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    06 Jan '09 22:51
    I guess my question would be, if the Bible lists something as an abomination before God, does this constitute "hate speech"? For example, the Bible also says beastiality is also an abomination. So if I were to proclaim this, would this constitute hate speech?

    Having said that, I do realize that some hate homosexuals and target them accordingly using the Bible as their license to do so, however, some simply disagree with the life style as they would other abominations listed in the Bible.
  9. Standard memberknightmeister
    knightmeister
    Uk
    Joined
    21 Jan '06
    Moves
    443
    06 Jan '09 23:06
    Originally posted by rwingett
    The alternate explanation is that Jesus never said those things. They are attributed to him by later authors. The whole death and resurrection song and dance is a later fabrication.
    That's a possibility but ToO subscribes to many of the words of Jesus , so how can just pick and mix? Jesus spoke about his death and ressurection.
  10. Standard memberknightmeister
    knightmeister
    Uk
    Joined
    21 Jan '06
    Moves
    443
    06 Jan '09 23:07
    Originally posted by whodey
    I guess my question would be, if the Bible lists something as an abomination before God, does this constitute "hate speech"? For example, the Bible also says beastiality is also an abomination. So if I were to proclaim this, would this constitute hate speech?

    Having said that, I do realize that some hate homosexuals and target them accordingly using the ...[text shortened]... some simply disagree with the life style as they would other abominations listed in the Bible.
    The difference is that bestiality is unlikely to take place between two consenting and loving adults. You have yet to explain WHY homsexuality is an abomination.
  11. Donationrwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    Royal Oak, MI
    Joined
    09 Sep '01
    Moves
    26187
    06 Jan '09 23:12
    Originally posted by knightmeister
    That's a possibility but ToO subscribes to many of the words of Jesus , so how can just pick and mix? Jesus spoke about his death and ressurection.
    Pick and mix? No, we use critical biblical scholarship. As I've brought up many times on this forum, the Jesus Seminar is engaged in reconstructing what it may have been that Jesus actually said, while stripping away what was likely a later invention. The results are controversial (of course), but very interesting none the less.
  12. Donationrwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    Royal Oak, MI
    Joined
    09 Sep '01
    Moves
    26187
    06 Jan '09 23:161 edit
    Originally posted by divegeester
    I have to ask. Did someone actually post that here somewhere or is from some other website?
    I think its robbie carrobie. But I'm not 100% certain of that.

    Edit: Or maybe it was dystoniac. I can't find it.
  13. Subscriberdivegeester
    reality bites
    variable
    Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86745
    06 Jan '09 23:37
    Originally posted by knightmeister
    The difference is that bestiality is unlikely to take place between two consenting and loving adults. You have yet to explain WHY homsexuality is an abomination.
    With respect KM that's perhaps not the full postiton. Some christians don't think it is an abominaton, but some do. Those that do usually do so because God declared in the bible to be so, same as worshiping other Gods for example. That may be the entire explanation from thier point of view, it is up to the enquirer to decide wether they wish to accept it or not.

    Those christians who do not think it's an abomination will have an explaination as to why they think that, and an enquirer should accept that and make their own mind up.

    In the case of a lack of further evidence I would politley advise a christian enquirer to accept Gods word on the matter but not judge the person in question.
  14. Hmmm . . .
    Joined
    19 Jan '04
    Moves
    22131
    06 Jan '09 23:59
    What is the definition of the English word “abomination” (or “abominable” )? What is the meaning of the Hebrew word? Is the English “abomination” a good translation?

    What is the association—if any—of abomination/abominable with moral wickedness? That is, if one thinks that homosexual behavior is “abomination”, is that the same as thinking that it is morally wrong? Why or why not?
  15. SubscriberFMF
    Main Poster
    This Thread
    Joined
    28 Oct '05
    Moves
    29845
    07 Jan '09 00:06
    Originally posted by rwingett
    I think its robbie carrobie. But I'm not 100% certain of that.

    Edit: Or maybe it was dystoniac. I can't find it.
    It's dystoniac. I trawled back through his posts from several previous days and made a little compilation. This was the exchange leading up to it:

    dystoniac: the Nazis didn't put people to death for being Christian, but islamist do it on a daily basis.

    FMF: Got any links to substantiate this assertion?

    dystoniac: Link yourself up to any TV, Newspaper, or simply 'Google': Islamist murdering Christians, and you'll find my assertion for sure.

    FMF: I've tried that. But I can't find any credible sources anywhere that indicate that Muslims are putting Christians to death on a daily basis. So unless you can come up with something, I'm afraid your hatespeech is just dangling there, embarrassingly.

    dystoniac: ...if your retort isn't hate speech, what do classify it as? Also, the truth is not hate speech; it seems every time you secular-progressives can't win an argument, you resort to using the old and tired hate speech....just as bad as using the race card.

    FMF: I don't know. But it's not hatespeech, that much is clear. This is hatespeech: man and man or woman and woman..this would be biologically unacceptable... Homosexuality is an abomination ... Christians are taught to [...] hate the sin... Non-believers [i.e. people you disagree with) will be eternally separated from God and eternally associated with Satan in hell, wailing and gnashing their teeth for all eternity... nonbelievers, aka atheists, murderers, child-killers, thieves, et al ... only a retard cannot grasp a simple concept that God is a Holy God and cannot accept sin of any form (i.e. your opponents are mentally handicapped)... you and I are not of the same "species" You belong to the God-less who, unless you change your non-believing ways, will inherit the lair of satan and be cast out along with most of humankind... satan, too, is very intelligent and convincing to those who refuse to see God's way (i.e. those who do not share your superstition are evil)... The non-believer [...] will dwell in eternal darkness, conscious for eternity, suffering damnation alongside satan and his demons ... Now that was hatespeech. You are what you say.

    dystoniac: What I said wasn't hatespech; it was the truth. If I said that your rationale/logic was equivalent to the north end of a south-bound mule, would that be hatespech too, even though it is true?
Back to Top