Evangelism or hatespeech?

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
Nothing is humorous about calling people insane, or any other derrogatory terms.

I was once, some years ago, in all seriousness, called a pupil of satan (nay, star pupil) whose motivation was to lead “baby Christians” astray. At the time, I did not take it humorously. I would’ve been better served if I had. But my own serenity level was low at the time. (I have been called other things as well.)

I am not innocent, but I do try to level criticisms at what is said rather than the person who has said it, in part because all I know of that person is the persona s/he presents on here.

“You’re just dumb.”

“You’re just dumb if you believe that.”

“That’s just a dumb thing to believe.”

Now, those are all, at some level, “insulting” statements. I take it that you would only ban the first one?

However, the mods are the arbiters of acceptable behavior one here. It is their standards that decide censorable or ban-able behavior. We can suggest that they change their standards, but theirs are the standards that we live by if we want to continue participating.

Originally posted by vistesd
I was once, some years ago, in all seriousness, called a pupil of satan (nay, star pupil) whose motivation was to lead “baby Christians” astray. At the time, I did not take it humorously. I would’ve been better served if I had. But my own serenity level was low at the time. (I have been called other things as well.)

I am not innocent, but I do ...[text shortened]... ir standards, but theirs are the standards that we live by if we want to continue participating.

Most people aren't very good at differentiating between an attack on their position and a personal attack when it's leveled at them. You'd get roughly the same reaction no matter which of the three statements you used.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
Nothing is humorous about calling people insane, or any other derrogatory terms.

It's not exactly funny if someone has their sexuality called an "abomination" either - and yet that seems to sit comfortably with you. You pick me up on a stray word , but at the same time homosexuals are still committing suicide because they feel society/ parents / church will not accept them. You have got your priorities wrong somewhere. You should worry less about your own sensitivities and start thinking about the people out there who are suffering.


To me the phrase "insane" is just a turn of phrase , like saying to someone "you must be mad" or "that's crazy " or " your crazy if you think that" . I accept that technically it's politcally incorrect , but so are many words that are still used freely (like brainstorm for example)

I really think you need to examine your own sensitivity to this. I accept if you have had a mental health problem then it could sound different to you , but it's not exactly a major insult in the grand scheme of things. It's also not out of keeping since you were attempting to justify the idea that God might find sandwiches sinful - which is , shall we say , less than rational.

What fascinates me about this is that all the time we are discussing this the real issue is not being discussed. This all sounds like a red herring to me.

Originally posted by knightmeister
It's not exactly funny if someone has their sexuality called an "abomination" either - and yet that seems to sit comfortably with you. You pick me up on a stray word , but at the same time homosexuals are still committing suicide because they feel society/ parents / church will not accept them. You have got your priorities wrong somewhere. You should w ...[text shortened]... the real issue is not being discussed. This all sounds like a red herring to me.

You have no idea what "sits comfortably with me" or not. I find the entire discussion of whether or not homosexuality (the act, the condition, however you wish to parse it) is a sin to be very confusing. My answer to said confusion may be quaint to you, in that I simply trust in God to determine what is sin and what is not (sandwiches included.
And to admit to a "politically incorrect statement" but to defend it because "they are used so freely" -- that's priceless. It's okay since everybody else does it? That's your defense?
I'm perfectly happy to let the moderators decide. I've been asked to send the offending thread(s), but as a Luddite, I'll have to figure out the procedure for categorizing these threads first. Hopefully, a decision from the mods will be forthcoming.

Originally posted by knightmeister
You should worry less about your own sensitivities and start thinking about the people out there who are suffering.

You have zero right to tell me what priorities I should place on my own suffering and sensitivities. ZERO

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
You have no idea what "sits comfortably with me" or not. I find the entire discussion of whether or not homosexuality (the act, the condition, however you wish to parse it) is a sin to be very confusing. My answer to said confusion may be quaint to you, in that I simply trust in God to determine what is sin and what is not (sandwiches included.
And to ...[text shortened]... izing these threads first. Hopefully, a decision from the mods will be forthcoming.

My answer to said confusion may be quaint to you, in that I simply trust in God to determine what is sin and what is not ==================================floyd============

So do I. My point is not whether we trust God or not but about whether we trust whether we are hearing from God or not. If God told me sandwiches were sinful then I would not think God had lost the plot I would just be suspicious of myself or the person who told me.

I trust God. I just don't always trust the people who claim to speak for Him. To not question the validity of some scripture is to remain naive about human nature.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
You have no idea what "sits comfortably with me" or not. I find the entire discussion of whether or not homosexuality (the act, the condition, however you wish to parse it) is a sin to be very confusing. My answer to said confusion may be quaint to you, in that I simply trust in God to determine what is sin and what is not (sandwiches included.
And to ...[text shortened]... izing these threads first. Hopefully, a decision from the mods will be forthcoming.

And to admit to a "politically incorrect statement" but to defend it because "they are used so freely" -- that's priceless. It's okay since everybody else does it? That's your defense? ----------------------------------------------floyd------------------------------------------------------

Maybe we should all get together on this forum and have a brainstorm about which words are acceptable and which are not. I'm sure we would all disagree on many , many words. If you do not understand that language and language norms are set by precedent and usage then you won't get the point I am making.

Many phrases that are used now (like bloody hell) are deemed very tame by today's standards whereas in days gone by you would be slaughtered for such words. So who decides? And why?

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
[b] You have zero right to tell me what priorities I should place on my own suffering and sensitivities. ZERO [/b]

Ok , fine , exercise your right to do this. If only the church would allow equal rights also to those who have a different form of sexuality. You also have ZERO right to suggest to a homosexual that their sexuality is an abomination or allow your church to prohibit him her from serving God.

Please think more carefully before you bring up the issue of "rights" , you may find you have opened a can of worms.

If you choose to get caught up in your own offense at a particular word then that's your choice. I never said you couldn't. I used the word "should" in a moral sense. Is your own offence more important than the suicides of homosexuals?

Originally posted by knightmeister
Ok , fine , exercise your right to do this. If only the church would allow equal rights also to those who have a different form of sexuality. You also have ZERO right to suggest to a homosexual that their sexuality is an abomination or allow your church to prohibit him her from serving God.

Please think more carefully before you bring up the issue ...[text shortened]... ld" in a moral sense. Is your own offence more important than the suicides of homosexuals?

First, neither I nor my church has ever prohibited a homosexual, or anyone else, form serving God. You seem to thing that anyone who is a Christian is a superconservative. I and my church are quite liberal. So with regards to discussing rights, I'm on as solid ground as possible.
Second, and keeping the first point in mind, you never did bother to apologize for calling me names, which says far more about you than me.
Lastly, I "get caught up" when bullies and people who belittle and insult others rear their ugly heads. I hold them in complete contempt.
And there have been plenty of suicides that have been traced to the activities I just described--don't think that homosexuals have some kind of monopoly on the sickness unto death/suicide/depression. I've lived thru as much of that kind of pain as any person, regardless of race, sexual orientation, or any other bar you wish to measure with.
And the best you can come up with is a joking "let's vote on what terrible words we can call one another and which are unacceptable?"

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
First, neither I nor my church has ever prohibited a homosexual, or anyone else, form serving God. You seem to thing that anyone who is a Christian is a superconservative. I and my church are quite liberal. So with regards to discussing rights, I'm on as solid ground as possible.
Second, and keeping the first point in mind, you never did bother to ap ...[text shortened]... "let's vote on what terrible words we can call one another and which are unacceptable?"

...............but do you think we should have a brainstorm on the subject?

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
[b] You have zero right to tell me what priorities I should place on my own suffering and sensitivities. ZERO [/b]

Huh?

How exactly does one make moral arguments without doing so?

Originally posted by knightmeister
...............but do you think we should have a brainstorm on the subject?

I think anyone should be permitted to brainstrom any point, so yes, of course. Of course, once you start calling me names, the discourse (and thus the "brainstorm"😉 meets a quick demise.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Huh?

How exactly does one make moral arguments without doing so?

Very VERY courteously.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
I think anyone should be permitted to brainstrom any point, so yes, of course. Of course, once you start calling me names, the discourse (and thus the "brainstorm"😉 meets a quick demise.

Ok , so i set you a trap.....

Notice how you used the word "brainstorm" without a second thought.

Now if I were a sufferer of epilepsy I could easily say that the word you should use is "thoughtshower" because brainstorm is offensive. Someone could be complaining to the moderators right now , how would you defend yourself?

See how easy it is to use a stray word innocently? Most around here would probably agree that although brainstorm maybe wasn't politcally correct , it's still used commonly by many with no thought of offence.

You have just used such a word. Think about how easily you used it. Think about how you would have felt if I had gone to the mods and made a fuss. Think about how petty that might have felt for you.

You would apologise (as I did) and then expect to move on.

Floyd ..please get over yourself now and let it go.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
Very VERY courteously.

"Please, Mr. Dahmer, stop killing and eating people. Thank you."