Originally posted by whodeyThe 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.
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 fro ...[text shortened]... God of the Bible does not always explain himself. If you don't believe me just read Job.
----------------------whodey----------------------
I think it makes a lot of difference actually. If someone were to pour out a lot of scorn and condemnation against terrorists , paedophiles, etc then it probably wouldn't sound as bad because naturally we all (apart from the very twisted) see these things as "abominable".
Thus the hatespeech towards paedophiles might seem appropriate (I personally think hatespeech of any kind is just not useful). If something is deemed morally abominable by huge swathes of society then speaking out aginst it is unlikely to be seen as hateful. I'm sure many non-religious people would be glad to see paedophiles in hell , even if they are not sure if they believe in it.
Homosexuals though? Hmmm different matter. Much of our moral outrage against padeophilia is about the immeasurable harm that is done to very vulnerable children. When fundies talk about homsexuality as if it is equivalent it sounds so much more hateful. It sounds irrational infact , why , because the listener is unable to find any reason for such hate other than "it says so in some book".
I think the religious can declare any activity an abomination if they like , what they need to be able to do however is justify such talk with a rationale of some kind that resonates with the rest of society's conscience. Otherwise such bold hatespeech just sounds like rabid nonsense based on blind faith.
How far do you go with such thinking? If God declares cheese sandwiches an "abomination" then do you question it - or just say "well God must have his reasons"? My first thought would be to question the sanity of the person who wrote down what God had "said".
1 edit
Originally posted by PinkFloydBut in doing so, I think that you (attempt to) abrogate the very moral responsibility that a “God of covenant” (as opposed to a God of submission) would want from people.
the latter
When Abraham stood up to God and argued that the guilty, even, should be spared on account of the innocent, do you think he was wrong to do so? Was that an act of “faithlessness”? Should he have just said, “Well God must have his reasons”?
Do you think that God prefers your submission to your willingness to declare your own moral opinion? if so, why?
Originally posted by vistesdArguing is one thing, but ignoring or demanding a reason is another. Just ask Job. 😉
But in doing so, I think that you (attempt to) abrogate the very moral responsibility that a “God of covenant” (as opposed to a God of submission) would want from people.
When Abraham stood up to God and argued that the guilty, even, should be spared on account of the innocent, do you think he was wrong to do so? Was that an act of “faithlessness”? Sho ...[text shortened]... God prefers your submission to your willingness to declare your own moral opinion? if so, why?
2 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterSo in your mind if you are not able to rationally explain why God would say something was an abomination then it would be hate speech?
I think the religious can declare any activity an abomination if they like , what they need to be able to do however is justify such talk with a rationale of some kind that resonates with the rest of society's conscience. Otherwise such bold hatespeech just sounds like rabid nonsense based on blind faith.
How far do you go with such thinking? If God d thought would be to question the sanity of the person who wrote down what God had "said".[/b]
I have always found that faith in God is not blind so long as you know who you are trusting in and who is talking to you. However, sometimes he says things that simply don't make any sense whatsoever. Just ask Abraham who was asked to sacrifice his own son. If you ask me, you would never concede to such a thing because you could not explain it rationally, however, for Abraham this was not the case.
For me, faith is not really faith if I have all the details mapped out in my own head. Their is ALWAYS an element of blindness when faith is involved, otherwise its not faith, it is simply human reason. And if it is simply human reason, why involve God at all?
Originally posted by josephwYou want to talk about your own topic, don't you? You don't want to address the topic of this thread, it seems. It's your prerogative I suppose. The only word in your post that was on topic was the sixth one, that is the world "say".
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?
Originally posted by vistesdJob's friends were judging him thinking that he MUST have done something wrong to deserve the ill fate he received, or at least, this was how I read it. That is why God was upset with Job's friends, no?
But, God said that his servant Job spoke of him (God) as he ought, and that Job’s “friends” (who presented arguments often presented by Christians on here ) did not.
Originally posted by whodeyGod may have been upset on more grounds than one. However, I do recall that God said that Job’s friends did not speak rightly of God. (I’m going from memory here.)
Job's friends were judging him thinking that he MUST have done something wrong to deserve the ill fate he received, or at least, this was how I read it. That is why God was upset with Job's friends, no?
1 edit
Originally posted by dystoniacCan you give me an example: a cut & paste from one of my posts to you perhaps?
Friend, that is your opinion. I could say your drivel was hate speech againg my beliefs
My accusation is, indeed, my opinion. And you are yet to mount a credible defence. Nor has anyone else truly lined up behind you or condoned the nature your language or the efficacy of what you are trying to do with your language.
Originally posted by FMFYou're right, and you are right about nobody lining up to cover my back, but that is what I expected. If I was damning Jews, or upholding Hamas, I would probably have a groupie forum in my name. So, allow me to apologize if I came across as hateful; it was not my intention.
Can you give me an example: a cut & paste from one of my posts to you perhaps?
My accusation is, indeed, my opinion. And you are yet to mount a credible defence. Nor has anyone else truly lined up behind you or condoned the nature your language or the efficacy of what you are trying to do with your language.
4 edits
Originally posted by vistesdOk, I think I remember something like that as well. Having said that, the question begs to be asked, who then does speak for God? Is it you or I? Is it the Biblical authors etc? That is for us to decide and us alone. Let our conscience be our judge. So I guess my question is, who then should be silenced? Should either Job or his friends be silenced? I think not. In fact, God did not silence them so who am I to do so? That is what frightens me about the hate speech police.
God may have been upset on more grounds than one. However, I do recall that God said that Job’s friends did not speak rightly of God. (I’m going from memory here.)
I think such experience as Job's and his friends enable us to not only learn about ourselves, but also about God. Just imagine if his friends had not been allowed to question Job in such a manner. The loss would have far outweighed the benefit in my opinion even though their judgments were unjust.