Evangelism or hatespeech?

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 ...[text shortened]... d strength of belief absolve us from accusations of hatespeech in the realm of spirituality?

Well, well, you had to go to your fellow atheists for assistance. I must have really pushed your buttons...LOL. OK, everybody, I wrote the paragraph in question. My question is this: Why is it that when atheists, gays, left-wingers, etc. make a statement, any statement, repulsive about Christians, it is accepted by the secular community, but when a Christian, such as myself, states his opinion, based on written (I didn't make the Holy laws) text, he is called a hate-monger. If I don't believe in gay marriage because I see it as sin, then I reckon that I'm homophobic, although I have some gay friends who, by the way, are against gay marriage. I love how you twist things around. The TRUTH really does hurt you, doesn't it...your post is proof that you have lost sleep over my statement...I think that's cool..

Originally posted by dystoniac
Well, well, you had to go to your fellow atheists for assistance. I must have really pushed your buttons...LOL. OK, everybody, I wrote the paragraph in question. My question is this: Why is it that when atheists, gays, left-wingers, etc. make a statement, any statement, repulsive about Christians, it is accepted by the secular community, but when a Chr ...[text shortened]... it...your post is proof that you have lost sleep over my statement...I think that's cool..

He did not post his question only to "fellow atheists". There are divergent views among both theists generally, and Christians specifically, on this forum.

And there are self-described atheists (twhitehead and Palynka come readily to mind) who have often charged in to challenge what they have seen as unfair caricatures of theists.

Your generalizations do not represent the folks on this forum.

Originally posted by vistesd
He did not post his question only to "fellow atheists". There are divergent views among both theists generally, and Christians specifically, on this forum.

And there are self-described atheists (twhitehead and Palynka come readily to mind) who have often charged in to challenge what they have seen as unfair caricatures of theists.

Your generalizations do not represent the folks on this forum.

Uh, OK, I'll try to be more specific in my divergence the next time I generalize...

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.

Whether or not homosexuality is an "abomination" in the sight of God is not the topic of this thread. The topic at hand in this thread is if people view certain activity whether sexual in nature or otherwise, as an abomination in the eyes of God and proclaim it as such to the masses does that constitute hate speech? If so, the religious will be outlawed from declaring any human activity an abomination in the eyes of God.

As for why the Bible declares homosexuality an abomination, I don't think it eplains why per sey other than it not being "natural".


Edit: Just so you know, the God of the Bible does not always explain himself. If you don't believe me just read Job.

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]

Does our sincerity and strength of belief absolve us from accusations of hatespeech in the realm of spirituality?

No, it is possible to share scriptural truth in a hateful way.

Unrepentant sinners who reject the salvific work of Jesus Christ, assuming the scriptural account is true, are indeed separated from God forever on the day of judgment. But this message was originally intended to be shared by Christians having an attitude of humility and gentleness. The reality of impending judgment is a solemn affair and God Himself takes no pleasure in the fate of the wicked. Therefore, it is only proper that a Christian tell the truth from a place of genuine concern for the lives of others. Furthermore, the Christian himself is unworthy of heaven (as he is only allowed in on Christ's coattails) and is in absolutely no position to look down upon other sinners (believers or otherwise). To do so, IMO, would be definitely hateful and may be tragically counterproductive, serving to drive away the very people the message of the Gospel might have saved from eternal destruction.

You are more than welcome to call the Christian Gospel hate-speech because it is an exclusivistic message, regardless of the manner in which it is shared with you. I'm not sure, though, that doing so would be particularly original.

Originally posted by dystoniac
Well, well, you had to go to your fellow atheists for assistance.

That's an odd thing to say. I took it here to Spirituality precisely in order to discuss it with believers to see to what extent they line up with you or distance themselves from you. What an odd way to open your post: an indication, I would venture to guess, of intellectual impairment perhaps?

Originally posted by dystoniac
The TRUTH really does hurt you, doesn't it...your post is proof that you have lost sleep over my statement...I think that's cool..

One could argue - reading this (above) - that you come across as a hateful person, sorry to say. You seem to take a certain amount of glee from the possibility of causing hurt and offence. And yet I certainly haven't lost sleep over this. My OP is an intellectual question and not emotional at all.

To a balanced, fair-minded person - including, it seems, some of your fellow believers - the stuff you come out with is clearly a form of hatespeech, "substantiated" only by your certainty, and not a shred of anything else. My questions are these: if you are truly sincere, are you entitled to some tolerance and leeway with regard to the perceived hatefulness of your words? If you were a person who had in fact lost his or her faith but continued to speak to others in this way, would your hatespeech become 'unforgivable', as it were?

I am not one of these people who believes I have the right not to be offended. Not at all. Demanding that is anathema to free speech and is a silly wet blouse type conception of 'human rights'. However your words go further. They are full of deeply personal insults, exhorting others to hatred, accusations of evil and satanism, images and threats of violence and gruesome death, asserting guilt by association with the worst kind of criminals, accusations of sub-human status or being a different "species", and so on and so on. This is vulgar, spiteful, intimidating stuff (or at least an attempt to be intimidating). It seems to go rather further than an ordinary, healthy, knockabout trading of "insults". It is hatespeech, surely, and the onus is on you to prove it's "true" in some objective way (and therefore a responsible or legitimate exercise of free speech) or cease and desist, and keep the dark, swirling, manic machinations of your mind to yourself.

I return to my original question: does your sincerity and strength of belief absolve you from accusations of hatespeech in the realm of spirituality? And if your defence is merely "it's true" then surely you alone cannot be the arbiter of that. Surely you would have to be able to actually establish this "truth" in the minds of, at least, some moderate balanced practitioners of your own faith or other open minded, reasonable people?

Can we really scream repulsive, intellectually absurd, unsubstantiated insults and condemnations at each other, and then simply defend it by saying "I think it's true"?

And if the answer to that is 'yes', is it still acceptable to scream repulsive, intellectually absurd, unsubstantiated insults and condemnations at someone who does not share our personal superstitions, if, in our heart of hearts, we don't actually believe what we are saying? Does it become unacceptable in such an instance? Does sincerity give us the green light to spout diatribes of hatespeech?

Seventeen years living among Muslims, with many knockabout theological debates with various individuals along the way (and we are talking about people who are just as "certain" as you about what "the truth" is), and yet I have never, ever been subjected to the kind of unhinged incoherent loveless rancorous barracking that you seem to take pleasure from dishing out.

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 ...[text shortened]... d strength of belief absolve us from accusations of hatespeech in the realm of spirituality?

Since when is speaking the truth "hate speech"?

"Survival of the fittest" "Natural selection"
Aren't these axioms of evolution?

It seems to me that evolution, coupled with the absents of a creator, promotes non-belief in absolute truths, or even universal moral values.

I would have to conclude that if one is going to judge the speech of another, then that judgement would have to be based on some moral criteria.

If that is the case, then evolution is evil since it promotes that one can do whatever one can get away with, and any "speech" about evolution could be considered "hate" speech.

Originally posted by josephw
It seems to me that evolution, coupled with the absents of a creator, promotes non-belief in absolute truths, or even universal moral values. I would have to conclude that if one is going to judge the speech of another, then that judgement would have to be based on some moral criteria. If that is the case, then evolution is evil since it promotes that one c ...[text shortened]... r one can get away with, and any "speech" about evolution could be considered "hate" speech.

Run that past me again. I have no idea what to say. And you were addressing me.

Originally posted by FMF
Run that past me again. I have no idea what to say. And you were addressing me.

Run what past you again?

Is it your opinion that speaking out against homosexuality is hate speech?

Originally posted by josephw
Is it your opinion that speaking out against homosexuality is hate speech?

Good grief, no. That's not what this thread is about. Not at all.

Originally posted by FMF
Good grief, no. That's not what this thread is about. Not at all.

Then apparently I went and did it again.

Every once in a while I'll read a post and completely misunderstand the posters intent. I'll go back and re-read yours and see where I went wrong. 😳

Originally posted by josephw
Then apparently I went and did it again.

Every once in a while I'll read a post and completely misunderstand the posters intent. I'll go back and re-read yours and see where I went wrong. 😳

I think speaking out against homosexuality is a right. I personally speak out (occasionally) against those who speak out against homosexuality. Presumably speaking out against homosexuality is some kind of "duty" too for many Christians of a certain persuasion or faction. I can understand up to a point. My OP was about language. It was about using deeply personal insults, exhorting others to hatred, strident accusations of evil and satanism, grotesque images and threats of violence and gruesome death, asserting guilt by association with the worst kind of criminals - rapists, childkillers - designation of sub-human status or of being a different "species", and so on. This thread is about language, about what "certainty" entitles a speaker to say, and about the onus to prove something "true" in some objective way that the victim of the alleged "hatespeech" can to some degree process - and I do mean something a little more tangible than I read it in a book. If the justification for the language is merely "faith" then perhaps the speaker needs to cease and desist - hold his or her private theories - and temper his or her language in public if it is grotesque in the way that dystonia's is. No, no. This is not a thread about the 'morality' issues surrounding homosexuality. Not at all.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]Does our sincerity and strength of belief absolve us from accusations of hatespeech in the realm of spirituality?

No, it is possible to share scriptural truth in a hateful way.

Unrepentant sinners who reject the salvific work of Jesus Christ, assuming the scriptural account is true, are indeed separated from God forever on the day of judgmen ch it is shared with you. I'm not sure, though, that doing so would be particularly original.[/b]

Nicely put Epi.

Notwithstanding God's righteous judgement; unbelievers will never be terrorised into believing, and sinners cannot be driven to repentance with threats of hell. The completion of God's plan was "finished" with Jesus' sacrificial attonement "once and for all". The subsequent life through the spirit should yield the fruit of the spirit, not the deeds of the flesh which are obviously not attractive to anyone.

The seed of salvation is like most seeds in that it is encased within the fruit. The Gospel will be effective when sinners see the fruit of the spirit in people's lives.

The so called "hate speak" (which I don't believe was motivated by hate btw) may contain TRUTH, but it is GRACE that saves people. The LAW is death, but the SPIRIT is life.

Reference: Galatians Ch 5:
Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.

Originally posted by FMF
I think speaking out against homosexuality is a right. I personally speak out (occasionally) against those who speak out against homosexuality. Presumably speaking out against homosexuality is some kind of "duty" too for many Christians of a certain persuasion or faction. I can understand up to a point. My OP was about language. It was about using deeply persona ...[text shortened]... s not a thread about the 'morality' issues surrounding homosexuality. Not at all.

So, if I were to say to a homosexual that homosexuality is an abomination in God's sight, and that it is a sin against God, would you say that it was hate speech?