Evangelism or hatespeech?

Originally posted by whodey
Ok, 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 ...[text shortened]... ss would have far outweighed the benefit in my opinion even though their judgments were unjust.

I don’t object to the identification of hate speech, and the presentation for argument on here (after all, the accused has then the chance of defending him/herself). I do object to censorship—even I were the object of such speech. I took that stance on here a couple of years ago with regard to egregious and personally painful remarks about Jews (a soft spot with me, as you know). I reserve my right to fight back—and I don’t want that censored either. Such ugliness survives best in the alcoves and enclaves of silence and secrecy. Let it come to light. It is not the snakes that I can see that I fear; it is the ones that I cannot see.

Originally posted by vistesd
I don’t object to the identification of hate speech, and the presentation for argument on here (after all, the accused has then the chance of defending him/herself). I do object to censorship—even I were the object of such speech. I took that stance on here a couple of years ago with regard to egregious and personally painful remarks about Jews (a soft sp ...[text shortened]... e to light. It is not the snakes that I can see that I fear; it is the ones that I cannot see.

Fear solely
Your inability to see😵

Originally posted by vistesd
I don’t object to the identification of hate speech, and the presentation for argument on here (after all, the accused has then the chance of defending him/herself). I do object to censorship—even I were the object of such speech. I took that stance on here a couple of years ago with regard to egregious and personally painful remarks about Jews (a soft sp ...[text shortened]... e to light. It is not the snakes that I can see that I fear; it is the ones that I cannot see.

Rec'd!!

Originally posted by dystoniac
So, allow me to apologize if I came across as hateful; it was not my intention.

You did. But apology accepted. Mind your language because I think it impairs you personal ministry. I understand your intention and it is not my intention or wish to hinder yours. I do not advocate censorship. But I reckon there's a need for a little self-censorship when you're (presumably) involved in the softly, softly, catchee monkee business! 🙂

Happy New Year to you, dystoniac.

Originally posted by FMF
You did. But apology accepted. Mind your language because I think it impairs you personal ministry. I understand your intention and it is not my intention or wish to hinder yours. I do not advocate censorship. But I reckon there's a need for a little self-censorship when you're (presumably) involved in the softly, softly, catchee monkee business! 🙂

Happy New Year to you, dystoniac.

Happy New Year to you as well....I will continue to voice my opinion, but I will try to do it a more peaceful way.....Peace.

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.

"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."

Okay, I get it. Hate speech is using the kind of language that everybody agrees is harmfull.

But if I were to publically state, as in this forum, that because the Bible very clearly says that homosexuality is a sin, that it is unnatural, that it is harmfull to the spiritual wellbeing of it's practitioners, would you consider that to be hate speech?

Originally posted by whodey
So 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 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 ...[text shortened]... t faith, it is simply human reason. And if it is simply human reason, why involve God at all?

If I was utterly convinced that God was talking to me then blind obedience might well be an option. I'm not against leaps of faith , what I am against is blind obedience to a piece of scripture that seems dubious. It's because I doubt that God actually thinks homosexuality is an abomination. There is a question mark for me over the validity of that scripture. This changes things for me.

Abraham was presumably 100% convinced that it was God who was asking him to sacrifice his son. Also there is another dimension to this - there is a rationality behind the Abraham situation , namely , it's about idolatry and whether one can sacrifice everything before God and hold nothing up as more important. That makes sense to me - there is a point and a reason behind what God is doing and saying. It's precisely because I believe that God always has his reasons that causes me to question the homosexuality issue.

In the case of homsexuality , no rationale has been provided to me by any Christian. Until someone can explain why God seems to have made it an abomination then I will feel justified in asking this. Surely somebody knows? There isn't any other sin I can think of that has no rationale behind it being declared a sin (let alone an abomination)

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
the latter

..and that's the difference between a fundie and a sane Christian.

Maybe if God told you that suicide bombing was "holy" you would not question it either? God has to be questioned - it's healthy heresy. The world is full of obedient non-questioning fundamentalists who cause great harm because they refuse to examine what they think God is saying.

(sorry to be harsh - but if you cannot see where this kind of thinking can lead you are lost)

Originally posted by knightmeister
Abraham was presumably 100% convinced that it was God who was asking him to sacrifice his son. Also there is another dimension to this - there is a rationality behind the Abraham situation , namely , it's about idolatry and whether one can sacrifice everything before God and hold nothing up as more important. That makes sense to me - there is a point and ...[text shortened]... ause I believe that God always has his reasons that causes me to question the homosexuality issue.

You can make sense out of pretty much anything and everything. I know because it seems I have debated three sides to about every issue there is. I guess that is why belief is such an important and vital aspect to our existence. In effect, your belief will mold the data before you to conform to your beliefs.

Originally posted by knightmeister
..and that's the difference between a fundie and a sane Christian.

Maybe if God told you that suicide bombing was "holy" you would not question it either? God has to be questioned - it's healthy heresy. The world is full of obedient non-questioning fundamentalists who cause great harm because they refuse to examine what they think God is saying. ...[text shortened]... sorry to be harsh - but if you cannot see where this kind of thinking can lead you are lost)

What makes a fundi a fundi is that a fundi believes that scripture is God inspired. In other words, they believe that reading scripture is like God talking to them becaouse they believe that God inspired those who wrote scripture.

Having said that, after reading much of what you write, I think even you view scripture to be God inspired. So in that sense you are a fundi as well, no? I think what you are saying is that you are a fundi ONLY if you take what as written as literal. I would agree, however, I would add that one needs to consider the context about what is being said as well as the accuracy of the interpretation about what is being said. I think you can still be a fundi in doing so. Case in point are some of my previous discussions about Genesis. My argument was that taking the Hebrew text literally was far different that taking the KJV literally because of interpretation issues.

As for the whole bit about suicide bombings, I suppose if the Bible included a discussion about the virtues for suicide bombings than it would be an issue, however, it does not. Suicide bombings would then ONLY be considered to be the will of God if one thought that God had told them directly to do so just like Abraham was told to sacrifice his son or someone told them that it was the will of God. I guess that is part of what Jesus was talking about when he told his disciples that my sheep know my voice and respond to it as opposed to listening to a strangers voice. In this sense, Abraham was confident that he knew the voice of God as where others may have a question about it.

Now getting back to what scripture says about homosexuality, it is condemned in both Old and New Testament writings. Now if you view these writings as inspired by God you would then have to tackle either the interpretations of them and/or the translation of them. In additon, you would have to tackle scripture by scripture in doing so. Off them top of my head, I would say there are about 5 or so in the OT and 5 or so in the New Testament. In doing so, I think you still could be labled a fundi even though you would be a fundi outside the mainstream currently.

Originally posted by whodey
What makes a fundi a fundi is that a fundi believes that scripture is God inspired. In other words, they believe that reading scripture is like God talking to them becaouse they believe that God inspired those who wrote scripture.

Having said that, after reading much of what you write, I think even you view scripture to be God inspired. So in that sense ...[text shortened]... still could be labled a fundi even though you would be a fundi outside the mainstream currently.

A fundi is someone who thinks the Bible is inspired by God but also thinks that it cannot be wrong and cannot contain within it the thoughts of men or the biases of cultural perceptions. You may think the Bible to be infallible , I do not. I do not have to believe it's infallible to believe it is inspired.

We know for example that there are references to those who were not circumcised which were over turned as inaccurate(not of God) in the NT. The whole Bible is a process of revision and re-vamping in the light of revelation - why should this stop? We now know for example that circumcision is an unhealthy practice and in women it's butchery. So how did it come to be so prominent? Cultural influences got in the way of Spirituality.

I'll leave you to figure out how this relates to homosexuality...

My belief is that even if God thought it was not a big deal those passages would still be in there anyway. They had to be , the cultural pressure and emotions involved were too strong.

Originally posted by whodey
You can make sense out of pretty much anything and everything. I know because it seems I have debated three sides to about every issue there is. I guess that is why belief is such an important and vital aspect to our existence. In effect, your belief will mold the data before you to conform to your beliefs.

I guess that is why belief is such an important and vital aspect to our existence. In effect, your belief will mold the data before you to conform to your beliefs.---whodey-------

correction->>>>>

I guess that is why belief is such an important and vital aspect to our existence. In effect, OUR beliefs will mold the data before US to conform to OUR beliefs.

Own it for yourself as well....?

Since I am the one who is allowing the data (on sexuality) to inform my beliefs much more than you are then I think this applies to you more than me don't you think?

Originally posted by josephw
if I were to publically state, as in this forum, that because the Bible very clearly says that homosexuality is a sin, that it is unnatural, that it is harmfull to the spiritual wellbeing of it's practitioners, would you consider that to be hate speech?

I would not. I would consider it to be anachronistic, irrational nonsense but because I do not hate you for your beliefs, my language would be moderate, as it is here and now.

Originally posted by knightmeister
[b]A fundi is someone who thinks the Bible is inspired by God but also thinks that it cannot be wrong and cannot contain within it the thoughts of men or the biases of cultural perceptions. You may think the Bible to be infallible , I do not. I do not have to believe it's infallible to believe it is inspired.

We know for example that there are referen tchery. So how did it come to be so prominent? Cultural influences got in the way of Spirituality.

I consider myself a fundi yet I am not sold on the whole "infallible" notion. For example, I think that there are typos within the text that seem to have appeared. An example is two different individuals in the OT given credit for killing Goliath. One was David and the other name eludes me now. To put it simply, the Bible does not claim to be infallible so why should I say it is? Those who claim that it is has added this doctrine via their interpretation. However, to say that there are blatant lies within it that counter the inspired word of God is quite another thing altogether. In other words, for men to include a passage stating that something was an abomination when, in fact, God smiled upon such activity more than once and in both Old and New Testament passages I think is problematic to say the least. At beast, it would be heresy intertwined with the inspired word of God.

As for circumcision, I have heard that medically it may have some benefit for males in terms of decreased risk of certain cancers etc. In terms of why it was introduced in the Mosaic covenant, I would say that the main reason was for the children of Israel to have a way to distinguish themselves from those who were outside the Mosaic covenant with God. In fact, part of why the Jewish religion and the offshoots from it survived and exist today is the emphasis to be separate from the Gentile way of doing things.

As for the whole bit about females being circumcised, I have no idea what you are talking about. I know of some tribes in Africa who do this but certainly the Hebrews nor anyone else I know does this.

Originally posted by knightmeister

My belief is that even if God thought it was not a big deal those passages would still be in there anyway. They had to be , the cultural pressure and emotions involved were too strong.[/b]

Off the top of my head I can think of one reason it was included. Namely there was a directive to reproduce in the Mosaic covenant. After all, they were small in number and had a "mission" from God to inherit the promised land. Of course, you may or may not agree that this "mission" was ordained by God since you question what was inspired or not inspired. In fact, there is a great deal for you to decide what is right or wrong in your own sight in terms of what God thinks and desires.