Evangelism or hatespeech?

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
First paragraph (after opening question)- I would appolodize if it was pointed out that I had insulted someone and didn't realize it. And I wouldn't need a moderator to direct me to co this--it's common courtesy.

Second paragraph-- I decided what is offensive to me. Always. A am the sole arbiter of this. We all do--it's part of our personal ...[text shortened]... unwilling to give without resorting to force, which is another thing I will never do.

When you recognize a person as particularly brittle, broken, emotionally scarred, etc., you say that you "try to be careful around such people." But then any sensitivity you might have shown goes out the window because what...you just HAVE to point out a perceived flaw in the other person (not really knowing anything about him or her)? My advice would be to follow that first way of thinking you described; as for the part that wants to criticize, it would be a nice thing to not follow that urge. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Floyd-------------------------------------------------

Someone who is very brittle and oversensitive and easily hurt needs to be treated with care . But to patronise them and never reflect back to them how oversenistive they are would be a mistake. To become happy such a person needs to stop blaming others for their hurt and pain and move on. If everyone they know walks on eggshells around them then they will never realise the truth about themselves. They cannot escape the prison around them because no-one will dare tell them the truth (for fear of treading on a landmine).

I am careful around such people because of the landmines they put around themselves. I don't want to get blown up by one. But at a safe distance I can point out to them that it's not really the way to relate to other people and that they need to take more responsibility for what they feel. I don't have a problem with someone who gets offended easily but then turns round and says " actually it's not you it's about me" .

The difficult one is when such a person persists in trying to make you feel guilty as if they have been "wronged" by an innocent comment Such a person needs to be challenged for their own good.

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]

This threatening fundamentalist is putting two groups in opposition to eachother, the non-believers, whom he equates with the sinners and the believers who (... apparantly) are the non-sinners.

I'm sorry but this is a false way of representing things ..... on top of that he is threatening people in an unacceptable way. This man does not represent the true Christian faith.

This man should not be taken seriously in matters of faith ... but all the more in political matters !

Originally posted by rwingett
It seems pretty clear to me. Religious fundamentalism is the last socially accepted form of hate speech.

.... not by me.

Originally posted by knightmeister
When you recognize a person as particularly brittle, broken, emotionally scarred, etc., you say that you "try to be careful around such people." But then any sensitivity you might have shown goes out the window because what...you just HAVE to point out a perceived flaw in the other person (not really knowing anything about him or her)? My advice would ...[text shortened]... nged" by an innocent comment Such a person needs to be challenged for their own good.

As you surmise, we are at an impasse, and that is a shame.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
As you surmise, we are at an impasse, and that is a shame.

No it's not. It's quite Ok for two people to disagree what is insulting and what isn't - it happens all the time. You think I insulted you , I disagree. It doesn't mean we can't be civil or even friends. We can agree to disgree.

The problem is that you keep pursuing the idea that you have been grievously insulted and want something from me. The moment you drop this and accept my reality and perceptions are just as valid as yours then you will feel much better.

Originally posted by RBHILL
The Word of God is against Gays.

God Created Adam and Eve no Adam and Steve.

No. Wrong.

God created Adam, Eve, and Steve. He created the homosexuals, too, whether you care to acknowledge it or not. Your ignorance of this is the abyss that you get to wallow in, but do not expect me to. Therein lies darkness.

Originally posted by Badwater
No. Wrong.

God created Adam, Eve, and Steve. He created the homosexuals, too, whether you care to acknowledge it or not. Your ignorance of this is the abyss that you get to wallow in, but do not expect me to. Therein lies darkness.

i do not know how you can say this, you are superseding the word of god and making it invalid by seeking to establish your own reasoning, there are many passages which clearly condemn, in the strongest terms, homosexuality!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i do not know how you can say this, you are superseding the word of god and making it invalid by seeking to establish your own reasoning, there are many passages which clearly condemn, in the strongest terms, homosexuality!

Really.

Genesis 1: 27 So God created humankind in his image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them, and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.’ 29 God said, ‘See, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.’ And it was so. 31 God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good.

This is the word of God. By God's reasoning what he created was from him and was good. That would seem to include homosexuals, unless you have in mind a different creator of humans; the one that created homosexuals and, by your reasoning, made them abhorrent and worthy of condemnation.

Originally posted by knightmeister
No it's not. It's quite Ok for two people to disagree what is insulting and what isn't - it happens all the time. You think I insulted you , I disagree. It doesn't mean we can't be civil or even friends. We can agree to disgree.

The problem is that you keep pursuing the idea that you have been grievously insulted and want something from me. The mom ...[text shortened]... ccept my reality and perceptions are just as valid as yours then you will feel much better.

Assuming that I don't "feel" euphoric already, that might be true.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i do not know how you can say this, you are superseding the word of god and making it invalid by seeking to establish your own reasoning, there are many passages which clearly condemn, in the strongest terms, homosexuality!

It dosen't make it invalid , just imperfect. The idea that human biases may have infiltrated the word of God is not exactly radical.

Think about it. The Jews quite often liked to portray the God of the OT as nationalistic and slaying and smiting the enemies of Israel. How convenient!

The Jews got it wrong on circumcision and had to be corrected - why could they not get homosexuality wrong? Why would God want to condemn homosexuals anyway?

I don't imagine that the people who wrote these passages were particularly liberal or politically correct. My guess is many passages were written by downright homophobes and bigots.

My point is that we need to read the word with an awareness of context and some skepticism of human nature.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
Assuming that I don't "feel" euphoric already, that might be true.

It's true if you believe it is. If you choose to see a statement as insulting you will feel insulted. It's your mind - you decide - but don't make me responsible for what you feel.

Originally posted by Badwater
No. Wrong.

God created Adam, Eve, and Steve. He created the homosexuals, too, whether you care to acknowledge it or not. Your ignorance of this is the abyss that you get to wallow in, but do not expect me to. Therein lies darkness.

Homosexualism came after the fall of man. So God did not create homosexuals.

Originally posted by RBHILL
Homosexualism came after the fall of man. So God did not create homosexuals.

What caused it then do you think? (and don't just say "sin" )