Preacher arrested for saying homosexuality is a sin

Talk about anything under the sun or stars - but keep it civil. This is where we really get to know each other. Everyone is welcome, and invited!
User avatar
Satya
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1052
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 6:00 pm
Title: Pvt. Brony
First Joined: 04 Jan 2002

Preacher arrested for saying homosexuality is a sin

Postby Satya » Tue May 04, 2010 8:05 am

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... a-sin.html

Read the article in full. Seriously. At first I thought this guy must have been a nut from Westboro or something, but no. He was just handing out leaflets, and when engaged by a passer-by in conversation, he quoted a passage that discusses sin - mentioning drunkenness and homosexuality and fornication among them. Not yelling. Not making a scene. Not threatening anyone. Just quoting scripture. Saying he believed it to be true. And he gets arrested.

Does that mean if I tell an alcoholic that scripture says drunkenness is a sin that I can be thrown in jail? If I tell a hooker that promiscuity is wrong, I can be arrested? WTF.
Discord ID: AJ#0001

jotabe
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 2105
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 11:59 am
Title: Leekmaster Kirbyfu

Postby jotabe » Tue May 04, 2010 9:06 am

It depends on what limits you think freedom of speech should have. Should a person be allowed to proselitize in public areas about non-whites being infra-humans, if they truly believe that?
I won't say one way or the other, because i am not decided on the matter, and probably never will.
Image

User avatar
Syphon the Sun
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 2218
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 8:59 pm
Title: Ozymandias

Postby Syphon the Sun » Tue May 04, 2010 1:35 pm

It depends on what limits you think freedom of speech should have.
As few as possible, and only where they must be balanced against the rights of others (e.g. intellectual property, defamation of non-public figures re: private issues, "fighting words," etc.).

There ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it might be considered.
Step softly; a dream lies buried here.

User avatar
Rei
Commander
Commander
Posts: 3068
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:31 pm
Title: Fides quaerens intellectum
First Joined: 24 Nov 2003
Location: Between the lines

Postby Rei » Tue May 04, 2010 3:54 pm

It's also worth noting that, at least according to the article, “case law has ruled that the orthodox Christian belief that homosexual conduct is sinful is a belief worthy of respect in a democratic society."

This would mean that to arrest someone for stating that belief, especially if it was done in a discussion of what people believe, as implied by the article, would be a violation of free speech.

What I marvel at is that there seems to be a need for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender liaison officers. I would think that a region would need a lot of discrimination against such demographics in particular in order to merit that specific of a division.
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point.
~Blaise Pascal


私は。。。誰?

Dernhelm

jotabe
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 2105
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 11:59 am
Title: Leekmaster Kirbyfu

Postby jotabe » Wed May 05, 2010 1:42 am

It's also worth noting that, at least according to the article, “case law has ruled that the orthodox Christian belief that homosexual conduct is sinful is a belief worthy of respect in a democratic society."
That's quite possibly the part of the article that sets me against the preacher. Because there are beliefs that are not worthy of respect, and that's one of them.
Image

User avatar
Syphon the Sun
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 2218
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 8:59 pm
Title: Ozymandias

Postby Syphon the Sun » Wed May 05, 2010 4:05 am

Because there are beliefs that are not worthy of respect, and that's one of them.
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Step softly; a dream lies buried here.

User avatar
Satya
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1052
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 6:00 pm
Title: Pvt. Brony
First Joined: 04 Jan 2002

Postby Satya » Wed May 05, 2010 4:47 am

Because there are beliefs that are not worthy of respect, and that's one of them.
You don't have to respect them. But you do have to tolerate them.
Discord ID: AJ#0001

jotabe
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 2105
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 11:59 am
Title: Leekmaster Kirbyfu

Postby jotabe » Wed May 05, 2010 4:50 am

Because there are beliefs that are not worthy of respect, and that's one of them.
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
*sigh* you are right, of course. It makes me feel bad, because those words used to be mine.

But i am not so sure anymore. Too many people use freedom of speech just to troll (irl), or to manipulate others. To destroy people's lives. I don't think i want anymore to give my life to defend their right to do so.
Image

User avatar
Rei
Commander
Commander
Posts: 3068
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:31 pm
Title: Fides quaerens intellectum
First Joined: 24 Nov 2003
Location: Between the lines

Postby Rei » Wed May 05, 2010 8:52 am

That's quite possibly the part of the article that sets me against the preacher. Because there are beliefs that are not worthy of respect, and that's one of them.
It's not so much whether it is or is not a belief worthy of respect. The issue is that there is a legal precedent that it is, which makes the situation more complicated. Whether we agree with him or not, the law in the past has agreed with him, and so long as he was not being hateful or particularly wretched in his statements or actions, the law should in theory defend him.

The part that I was more quick to judge was his complaint about his treatment. Which is dangerous territory because I'm more than a little sure that I can't honestly say I'd be any better a martyr than he was when he was griping about feeling humiliated.
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point.
~Blaise Pascal


私は。。。誰?

Dernhelm

Azarel
Soldier
Soldier
Posts: 97
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 4:15 pm
Location: Outside

Postby Azarel » Tue May 11, 2010 4:32 am

It's yet another example of (in this case) secular agenda-pushing (aka Equality).

The fact that an arrest was even considered against someone quietly discussing his beliefs in a one-on-one conversation is just proof of how (at least western) society has failed to recognize that it has gone batsh!t crazy.

jotabe
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 2105
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 11:59 am
Title: Leekmaster Kirbyfu

Postby jotabe » Tue May 11, 2010 8:01 am

Quietly discussing with someone that didn't want that discussion. And discussing sin is not an innocent matter: telling someone that their lifestyle is sinful is telling them that you think it's just they spend an eternity under torture because of it.
Image

User avatar
Satya
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1052
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 6:00 pm
Title: Pvt. Brony
First Joined: 04 Jan 2002

Postby Satya » Tue May 11, 2010 8:47 am

Quietly discussing with someone that didn't want that discussion.
The other person WENT TO preacher to discuss it.
And discussing sin is not an innocent matter
What?! I'm.. just.. honestly flabbergasted. I'm not usually rendered speechless. Seriously.
telling someone that their lifestyle is sinful is telling them that you think it's just they spend an eternity under torture because of it.
I don't see anything wrong with this. At all. Whatsoever. I get to say whatever I want. If you don't like it, don't listen. Leave. Try to prove me wrong. Whatever. But what you DON'T get to do is have the government shut me up. Ever. Jefferson's rolling over in his grave as we speak. This is how liberty dies - not with goose-stepping marches or fiery rhetoric or mushroom-clouds or machine-gun fire, but with ignorance, apathy and the piecemeal concession of bits of freedom. This is the fundamental difference between us. I zealously guard the liberties I have, and aggressively seek to appropriate new ones at every opportunity while never letting anyone snatch them away - while you servile statists glibly accept whatever you are 'graciously' granted by your leaders, smugly bowing and scraping and handing over whatever is asked. Just because you're satisfied with a metaphorical reach-around whilst getting pounded in the rear doesn't mean anyone else should accept it. But you just keep bending over and taking it, you slavish masochist.
Discord ID: AJ#0001

User avatar
Jebus
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1300
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 5:53 pm
Title: Lord and Saviour
First Joined: 07 Nov 2001

Postby Jebus » Tue May 11, 2010 9:00 am

This is how liberty dies - not with goose-stepping marches or fiery rhetoric or mushroom-clouds or machine-gun fire, but with ignorance, apathy and the piecemeal concession of bits of freedom. This is the fundamental difference between us. I zealously guard the liberties I have, and aggressively seek to appropriate new ones at every opportunity while never letting anyone snatch them away - while you servile statists glibly accept whatever you are 'graciously' granted by your leaders, smugly bowing and scraping and handing over whatever is asked. Just because you're satisfied with a metaphorical reach-around whilst getting pounded in the rear doesn't mean anyone else should accept it. But you just keep bending over and taking it, you slavish masochist.
Satya, I just love your rhetoric, it amuses me to no end.

My two-cents on the topic: Freedom of speech should end at incitement to violence. I think defining exactly what incitement to violence is can be tricky, but I do not think that is what this preacher was doing. I hope he is cleared of the charge.

jotabe
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 2105
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 11:59 am
Title: Leekmaster Kirbyfu

Postby jotabe » Tue May 11, 2010 9:29 am

I zealously guard the liberties I have, and aggressively seek to appropriate new ones at every opportunity
I deduce you include that you aggressively seek to appropriate others' liberties, including their liberty to be left well alone, right?
That's the problem with fake libertarians, that they have a lot of knowledge and verbal artillery to defend the freedom of the people in their own ideological field, but not as much about the freedom of the people who think differently, who might as well die on a (literal) fire. We become unpersons.

I am with Jeebs, i don't think that the preacher was really hurting that guy's freedom. What he was doing was probably legally right (that doesn't mean it isn't inmoral). But going back to the quote brought up by StS, I would defend to death* the right to say whatever he wants to say to someone who oposes me but treats me respectfully. But while i will acknowledge his right to say it to someone who disrespects me, i will be a lot less inclined to lie my life for him.

*this is largely theoretical, i have no idea how afraid of death i actually am: while i fear i am not a very brave person, i don't really have an excessive attachment to life as to endure humiliation just to stay alive.
Image

User avatar
Satya
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1052
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 6:00 pm
Title: Pvt. Brony
First Joined: 04 Jan 2002

Postby Satya » Tue May 11, 2010 7:43 pm

Satya, I just love your rhetoric, it amuses me to no end.
That's like, the empty-net goal of argument. Cheap, easy, and pointless. "you're talking makes me laugh. you are amusing. your attempt at conversation is humorous. lol. rofl."
Discord ID: AJ#0001

jotabe
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 2105
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 11:59 am
Title: Leekmaster Kirbyfu

Postby jotabe » Wed May 12, 2010 1:44 am

That's like, the empty-net goal of argument. Cheap, easy, and pointless. "you're talking makes me laugh. you are amusing. your attempt at conversation is humorous. lol. rofl."
Ok, let's examine this argument of yours:
This is how liberty dies - not with goose-stepping marches or fiery rhetoric or mushroom-clouds or machine-gun fire, but with ignorance, apathy and the piecemeal concession of bits of freedom. This is the fundamental difference between us. I zealously guard the liberties I have, and aggressively seek to appropriate new ones at every opportunity while never letting anyone snatch them away - while you servile statists glibly accept whatever you are 'graciously' granted by your leaders, smugly bowing and scraping and handing over whatever is asked. Just because you're satisfied with a metaphorical reach-around whilst getting pounded in the rear doesn't mean anyone else should accept it. But you just keep bending over and taking it, you slavish masochist.
I have bolded adjectives, metaphores and adverbs without which the message of the "argument" would be perfectly understood. I have italized your use of a label, a word that doesn't have a meaning other than labeling people who don't agree with you. Do you think it's something that can be taken seriously?
An argumentation is not a rhetorics contest.
And then you talk about "cheap, easy and pointless."
Last edited by jotabe on Wed May 12, 2010 5:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image

User avatar
Jebus
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1300
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 5:53 pm
Title: Lord and Saviour
First Joined: 07 Nov 2001

Postby Jebus » Wed May 12, 2010 2:50 am

Satya, I just love your rhetoric, it amuses me to no end.
That's like, the empty-net goal of argument. Cheap, easy, and pointless. "you're talking makes me laugh. you are amusing. your attempt at conversation is humorous. lol. rofl."
Except I'm not arguing with you, and I do love your style. The vile, sexual imagery would be enough to make even the most ardent anarchist or Marxist proud.

User avatar
Satya
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1052
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 6:00 pm
Title: Pvt. Brony
First Joined: 04 Jan 2002

Postby Satya » Wed May 12, 2010 4:49 am

I'm confused as to why you bolded "piecemeal" jota. You do understand that word, right? It's not a loaded reference or anything - it just means one piece at a time, bit by bit. It's not even a metaphor; it's a literal term for doing something slowly, deliberately and constantly.

Dictionary:
piece·meal
adv.
1. By a small amount at a time; in stages.
2. In pieces; apart.
adj.
1. Accomplished or made in stages.
Discord ID: AJ#0001

jotabe
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 2105
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 11:59 am
Title: Leekmaster Kirbyfu

Postby jotabe » Wed May 12, 2010 5:20 am

Ok, got it. I thought it meant "juicy". No, it's not the first time that i see it, but in most contexts i had seen it, the meaning i had guessed fitted right, so i didn't check it in the dictionary. So i un-bolden it.
Still, it seems reiterative, first piecemeal and then bits right after.

Anyway, this proves you always need to doublecheck stuff in the dictionary.
Image

User avatar
Satya
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1052
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 6:00 pm
Title: Pvt. Brony
First Joined: 04 Jan 2002

Postby Satya » Wed May 12, 2010 5:01 pm

I deduce you include that you aggressively seek to appropriate others' liberties
I can't appropriate other people's rights. I can only appropriate rights from the State. Other people have the same rights as I do. When I gain a right, I gain it for every individual, not just myself. Your next statement was just as ludicrous:

"including their liberty to be left well alone"

That's a bit of a libertarian argument, isn't it? LOL. You can't have it both ways. You get free speech, and you get the right not to listen. You don't get the right to have the State shut someone up because you don't like what they're saying.
Discord ID: AJ#0001

jotabe
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 2105
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 11:59 am
Title: Leekmaster Kirbyfu

Postby jotabe » Thu May 13, 2010 6:50 am

States have no rights. States are just groups of people that set rules so they can live together for mutual benefit without stepping on each other toes.

"When I gain a right, I gain it for every individual, not just myself." Ask a someone who is a "pick and chose objectivist", like Fidel Castro (he has never sacrificed himself for anyone, he follows the rayndian tenets up to that point): he has gained a great deal of rights and freedoms for himself, but not for others.

Of course i can have it both ways: i get free speech, but i can only exert it where other people can tune me off, so i don't overstep their right not to listen. I can't place myself in a position where they have no other choice but to listen me (as Hugo Chavez tries to do).
Image

Azarel
Soldier
Soldier
Posts: 97
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 4:15 pm
Location: Outside

Postby Azarel » Thu May 13, 2010 7:04 am

Sorry that my comments provoked this reaction in some of you. Though your comments to each other are ultimately your responsibility.

---

I cannot vouch for the spin the guy in question used to convey his beliefs to the person who got him arrested, but by reading the words in Leviticus cannot be considered much more than a recital/quoting etc...

If he went on to accuse the person and told them they deserve to or would go to hell for their lifestyle, then he's missed the point of God's/Jesus' teaching.

Of course, it should be considered that the chances are the person who lead to the arrest asked him to talk about the subject on purpose to bait him.


For instance, as Mary Magdalene was about to get stoned to death for being a [edited] adulterer, he defended her in front of a crowd who failed to realise their own mistakes. From that day she stopped being a [edited] Adulterer. <- that's the key of repentance, saying sorry and not doing it again.

One thing I don't understand about people's interpretation of Leviticus 18 however, is how they say that it no longer counts because Jesus brought a new covenant.

But if that's true, (which it isn't because Jesus himself said "I come not to abolish the teachings or the prophets, but to fulfill them") then surely if one line of Leviticus 18 is canceled then all of them are? For those who haven't read it, that would mean that having sex with blood relatives and animals is perfectly acceptable in the eyes of the Lord, and so I assume everyone else.
...Now, I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not sure about this one.

But in all seriousness, this is how I look at it:

- I believe in the Bible
- I have read Leviticus
- As a Christian who believes in the Bible I will live according to it's teaching the best I can with the mindset to improve rather than decline as an ongoing process.
- Due to the above points, I agree that homosexuality is not compatible with the lifestyle my beliefs instruct me to live, therefore it would be wrong for ME to be homosexual.
- I believe in free will
- Someone who chooses NOT to be a Christian, is as such free to choose their sexuality. If there happen to be everlasting consequences of that choice, the onus is on them.

The difficulty arises when someone claims to be a Christian and attests that the choice of sexuality is compatible with scripture or simply that God doesn't mind. I only have my above points as an answer to that one.

Some people also make the argument that Jesus might have been gay as he went round with 12 men and was unmarried. Well, the only evidence you have in a the Bible is that he was celibate. why do I say this? Well considering how often the bibles informs us of sexual relations between married couples, Kings and including examples of incest (as wrong) then I believe that if Jesus had a relationship, with as many people in his time as close to him as they were, I'm sure there would be some mention of it.

But as one can see from the bible is that he was simply too busy for a relationship of that nature with anyone. Also given that he stated long before he died that he came to die, I'm sure leaving a widow was unnecessary.

So there, that's the most placcid and yet official way I can make my point on this.

I guess my point that as a Christian, I am sorry that there has been so much 'pointing out' instead of 'looking in' from Christians over the last few centuries.
Last edited by Azarel on Tue May 18, 2010 6:27 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Satya
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 1052
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 6:00 pm
Title: Pvt. Brony
First Joined: 04 Jan 2002

Postby Satya » Thu May 13, 2010 7:49 am

States have no rights..
This shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the workings of government. States have rights. I don't even know how to make this any clearer to you. How about this: Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The State is granted rights by the Constitution. The "United States" (the Federal) is also granted rights by the Constitution. The People (individuals) are also granted rights by the Constitution. What we're talking about here is the balance between the three - and obviously I prefer to lean towards individual liberty, in which the Constitution agrees with me.
Discord ID: AJ#0001

jotabe
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 2105
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 11:59 am
Title: Leekmaster Kirbyfu

Postby jotabe » Thu May 13, 2010 8:48 am

You are limited by the literality of the words of the law, so you can't go beyond it. Be surprised, the legal and political system in the US isn't the only one in the world, and English isn't the only language.


The so-called rights of the state are nothing but rules agreed by the people to live in community. The 10th ammendment, for example is nothing but the citizens of each state having the right to decide, by majority, what to do on the matters where they aren't bound through the constitution to whatever the population of the rest of the states say.

What "right of the state" (in a democratic state) is but a right for the people to decide and a duty for the people who don't agree with the result to obey the majority vote? (the duty comes from the necesity of obeying regulations so society can exist at all).

And please, do not mix the concept of state with "state of the USA", because it gets confusing. We are talking about religion and morality, not about law. I am open and willing to discuss the morality of a certain law, but i cannot discuss what one law or another says, or what their interpretations are, because i am not a shyster.


Edit: btw azarel, what do you mean about the reaction your comments caused on some of us? :shock:
Image

User avatar
Rei
Commander
Commander
Posts: 3068
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:31 pm
Title: Fides quaerens intellectum
First Joined: 24 Nov 2003
Location: Between the lines

Postby Rei » Thu May 13, 2010 11:06 am

For instance, as Mary Magdalene was about to get stoned to death for being a prostitute, he defended her in front of a crowd who failed to realise their own mistakes. From that day she stopped being a prostitute. <- that's the key of repentance, saying sorry and not doing it again.
As a side-note, I always felt bad for her getting this rap. One pope suggests she was a prostitute and all subsequent history goes with it.
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point.
~Blaise Pascal


私は。。。誰?

Dernhelm

jotabe
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 2105
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 11:59 am
Title: Leekmaster Kirbyfu

Postby jotabe » Thu May 13, 2010 12:03 pm

Wasn't it a tradition in the early christianity to identify Mary Magdalene, the prostitute and the woman with the perfume as the same one?
Image

User avatar
Rei
Commander
Commander
Posts: 3068
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:31 pm
Title: Fides quaerens intellectum
First Joined: 24 Nov 2003
Location: Between the lines

Postby Rei » Thu May 13, 2010 6:58 pm

It's possible, although I've not heard of that. She did have seven demons driven out of her, though, if I recall correctly.
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point.
~Blaise Pascal


私は。。。誰?

Dernhelm

User avatar
Syphon the Sun
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 2218
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 8:59 pm
Title: Ozymandias

Postby Syphon the Sun » Fri Jun 18, 2010 6:07 pm

Just realized nobody ever provided the update: the charges were dropped.

The police chief noted that they "respect, and are committed to upholding, the fundamental right to freedom of expression."
Step softly; a dream lies buried here.

User avatar
Rei
Commander
Commander
Posts: 3068
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:31 pm
Title: Fides quaerens intellectum
First Joined: 24 Nov 2003
Location: Between the lines

Postby Rei » Fri Jun 18, 2010 9:26 pm

I'm very pleased to see that. It's also good to see Peter Tatchell's comment as a gay rights campaigner; it provides a good voice of reason to the gay rights side of the discussion to be able to disagree with and oppose a view, but to also oppose the criminalisation of that view.
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point.
~Blaise Pascal


私は。。。誰?

Dernhelm

Azarel
Soldier
Soldier
Posts: 97
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 4:15 pm
Location: Outside

Postby Azarel » Mon Jun 21, 2010 7:55 am

Peter Tatchell: "Although I disagree with Dale Mcalpine and support protests against his homophobic views, he should not have been arrested and charged. Criminalisation is a step too far."
He says that he disagrees with Dale Mcalpine, but Dale Mcalpine did not give his personal opinion, he voiced what was written in the Bible.

So in reality what Tatchell disagrees with is the Bible. He therefore supports protests against the Bible, or the church in general perhaps.

I'm not sure why that attitude is to be considered any better than someone sharing what is written in a book that may offend someone who (if living by that book) would be in breach of it's guiding principles.

It sounds to me like Mr Tatchell is being supported in, and encouraging Christophobia and Christophobic demonstrations.

That being said, I am glad he had the common sense/decency to condemn the arrest.

jotabe
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 2105
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 11:59 am
Title: Leekmaster Kirbyfu

Postby jotabe » Mon Jun 21, 2010 8:06 am

Having in account that:
-The christians that read the bible literally and consider homosexuality is something evil are a minority.
-Said minority likes to represent the whole christianity.
-Said minority likes to represent Christ itself.
-They believe the fact that a person practices homosexuality openly and without guilt deserves eternal torture.
-They believe that such a punishment for someone who hasn't harmed others is to be considered as perfect justice.

Then maybe being phobic (afraid) of these christians isn't such a bad idea. But i wouldn't go as far as calling it christophobia, as noone is afraid of Christ, nor of his message, nor of your everyday christian. Fundiephobia would be much more appropriate, and it would also include islam fundies. Bonus.
Image

User avatar
Rei
Commander
Commander
Posts: 3068
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:31 pm
Title: Fides quaerens intellectum
First Joined: 24 Nov 2003
Location: Between the lines

Postby Rei » Mon Jun 21, 2010 10:16 am

Peter Tatchell: "Although I disagree with Dale Mcalpine and support protests against his homophobic views, he should not have been arrested and charged. Criminalisation is a step too far."
He says that he disagrees with Dale Mcalpine, but Dale Mcalpine did not give his personal opinion, he voiced what was written in the Bible.

So in reality what Tatchell disagrees with is the Bible. He therefore supports protests against the Bible, or the church in general perhaps.
To be fair, Mcalpine did not exactly voice what was in the Bible. He voiced an interpretation of what was in the Bible. What IS in the Bible is that homosexual behaviour is a sin; not the state of being attracted to people of the same sex. So while what is stated in the Bible allows for celibate homosexuals, Mcalpine's statement does not, meaning that disagreeing with him is NOT in fact the same thing as disagreeing with the Bible.

Also, there is a very big difference between someone who goes out to protest against one idea (not even an integral and central issue) which the Bible is often used to defend versus someone who protests the whole Bible specifically to be anti-Christian.

In short, don't confuse a desire for equal rights with a desire to attack the Bible and the whole Church.
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point.
~Blaise Pascal


私は。。。誰?

Dernhelm

User avatar
Syphon the Sun
Toon Leader
Toon Leader
Posts: 2218
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 8:59 pm
Title: Ozymandias

Postby Syphon the Sun » Mon Jun 21, 2010 10:29 am

The christians that [...] consider homosexuality is something evil are a minority.
Source? I haven't seen the breakdown by religion, or even worldwide polling results, but that conflicts with at least overall American polling results.

The last data I could find quickly was a 2004 U. Chicago (National Opinion Research Center) survey which found that 57% of Americans find homosexuality "morally wrong" and some various Gallup polls, where the most recent poll hovers around 50% for each (47% say it is morally acceptable, 49% say it is morally wrong).
Step softly; a dream lies buried here.

Azarel
Soldier
Soldier
Posts: 97
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 4:15 pm
Location: Outside

Postby Azarel » Mon Jun 21, 2010 12:53 pm

Well, I did say 'perhaps'.

Also to be honest, this topic is an eternal minefield. Neither side will ever fully back down.

User avatar
Rei
Commander
Commander
Posts: 3068
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:31 pm
Title: Fides quaerens intellectum
First Joined: 24 Nov 2003
Location: Between the lines

Postby Rei » Mon Jun 21, 2010 8:49 pm

That I will definitely grant.
Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait point.
~Blaise Pascal


私は。。。誰?

Dernhelm


Return to “Milagre Town Square”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot], Amazon [Bot], Semrush [Bot] and 52 guests