This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
News Articles
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Eccentrica
I'm not sure I follow, Eccentrica. It seems you are reading some "sub context" that ins't there are at all. No ulterior motive you say, fine, I will accept that assertion.
I will say that your desire for Christians to "keep their beliefs to themselves" is fairly unacceptable.
And I responded with a list of other unacceptable things.
I fail to see how a thousand year old catholic war has to do with me being mocked on wowhead.
It doesn't. It was in response to a particular train of thought which I addressed above.
You aren't being mocked. Your views are being questioned and you are being asked to take responsibility for what you say
I wasn't mocking you and to my reading no one else was either. I was then speaking in general terms. The whole process of discussion involves not merely stating our views and presenting evidence supporting our assertions of fact, but being able to explain and defend our positions in the face of questions and counterarguments.
Post by
MyTie
That appears to be your opinion on what I've said. Would you like any clarification on what I've said?
Post by
Eccentrica
Well, to get back to the article you've posted, what is your take on it?
Post by
MyTie
I feel, as a Christian, that if I publicly express my opinions, I will be treated poorly because of it. Therefore, the article is important to me because it talks about a problem that personally affects me.
Post by
Eccentrica
Do you think that the reception of expressed opinion depends on the opinion itself, or the manner (time, place, audience, tone of voice, etc.) of the expression?
For example, I could sit down over coffee with you and have a discussion and would receive opinion one way, but I would react quite another way if you entered my physical 'bubble' screaming and shouting your opinion.
Post by
MyTie
Do you think that the reception of expressed opinion depends on the opinion itself, or the manner (time, place, audience, tone of voice, etc.) of the expression?
Both.
Post by
Eccentrica
Well, how would you address this issue then? You want to say what you want to say, but are not happy that this is received poorly.
You've two choices, it seems to me: don't say things which upset other people, or say what you want and face the consequences.
What do you see as a solution?
Post by
MyTie
You've two choices, it seems to me: don't say things which upset other people, or say what you want and face the consequences.
What do you see as a solution?
I'll say what I want, and face consequences. That said, my choice to say what I want is not the issue here. The issue is the ruthless intimidation and bigotry that people face for having the opinions they do. Just because someone believes homosexuality is right, doesn't mean they
should
keep quiet or endure intimidation. It means that people
should
tolerate the people with those opinions. The same goes for the way that Christians
should
be treated.
I'm saying I understand what my opinions are. I get those. Those aren't the topic, but the awful way that people are treated in the first place.
Post by
Eccentrica
I agree. People do often face ruthless intimidation and bigotry for holding opinions, and for expressing those opinions.
It would behoove us all, therefore, to stop trying to force our opinions on others, but to use those as a stepping stone to discussion and compromise instead of seeing the world in either black or white, but instead in shades of grey.
However, holding an opinion is not license to say absolutely everything that pops into your head, nor is it license to behave anyway you see fit. Public sensibilities won't tolerate it and therefore law forbids it, thus laws against libel and slander and hate-speech.
Post by
MyTie
I agree. People do often face ruthless intimidation and bigotry for holding opinions, and for expressing those opinions.
It would behoove us all, therefore, to stop trying to force our opinions on others, but to use those as a stepping stone to discussion and compromise instead of seeing the world in either black or white, but instead in shades of grey.
However, holding an opinion is not license to say absolutely everything that pops into your head, nor is it license to behave anyway you see fit. Public sensibilities won't tolerate it and therefore law forbids it, thus laws against libel and slander and hate-speech.
Agreed, but that's not what is being described by that article. The people being described aren't forcing anything.
Post by
Eccentrica
Listen, we can discuss the article in a vacuum or we can discuss our opinions on the article. I asked a question, you answered it, I countered what
you
had to say, you responded by running back to the article.
Pick something to discuss and stay on line.
I've read the article twice. It contains many statements that could form the basis of discussion, but unfortunately is poorly written as it does not have a central thesis, or at least the author started with one and then derailed himself and failed to come to a conclusion. He would have gotten a C at best if he had submitted this to any of his High School English teachers.
What is the crux of
your
point?
Post by
MyTie
Listen, we can discuss the article in a vacuum or we can discuss our opinions on the article. I asked a question, you answered it, I countered what
you
had to say, you responded by running back to the article.
This is a thread to post and discuss news article. I'm sorry you find CNN's article to be less than acceptable to your literature demands. I suggest if you would like to talk about tolerance of beliefs further, make a thread. I'd participate.
Well, in a while. I'm gonna go get some lunch.
Post by
Eccentrica
Yes, it is a shame that a publication like CNN can't get essayists who can actually follow essay form. One of the beauties of a good education is the ability to put into use what you have learned, and here MyTie, you find yourself in a rather well educated group.
It's also a shame (for you) that I am holding your feet to the fire. My earlier assertion that you posted that article merely to provoke seems to have been proved true seeing as you are incapable of discussing it. You are far more verbose when you are standing on shaky ground discussing 'beliefs' or 'feelings', those things which cannot be quantified and either proven or disproven.
Post by
MyTie
Yet
another rally
against Putin...
Post by
Eccentrica
No, no. Lets discuss the article you already posted. Don't run away.
Post by
Adamsm
Here is a
news article
about the way Christians are often treated by society.
Huh...so the largest religious group in America is a minority? Alright then; also, I do like the way this person speaks:'That's a lie'
Potok, from the Southern Poverty Law Center, has little use for the love Sprigg talks about.
He calls it hatred, and his voice rose in anger when he talked about the claims by Sprigg and other Christian groups that gay men are more predisposed to molest children and that homosexual behavior is inherently harmful.
He says the Southern Poverty Law Center didn’t designate the Family Research Group a hate group because they view homosexuality as a sin or oppose same-sex marriage, Potok says. There are plenty of Christian groups who hold those beliefs but are not hate groups, he says.
A group becomes a hate group when it attacks and maligns an entire class of people for their “immutable characteristics,” Potok says. The Family Research Council spreads known falsehoods about gays and lesbians, he says, such as the contention that gay men are predisposed to abuse children.
“That’s a lie,” Potok says. “These guys are engaging in straight-up defamation of a very large group of people. There are not many things much worse than you can say in America about somebody than they are a child molester.”
Potok scoffed at Spriggs’ claim that the council and other evangelical anti-gay groups are victims of intolerance.
“That’s whining on the part of people who spend their days and nights attacking gay people and then some people criticize them and they don’t like it,” he says. “That’s pathetic. It reminds me of slave owners complaining that people are saying ugly things about them.”
Also, it's amusing that people say they want to be treated with respect for their opinions...then seem shocked that what is said, IE homosexuality is a sin, makes people angry. You can talk about how 'good Christians' can't speak the truth without being labeled a bigot or throwing hate speech...but the issue is, some of what they are saying is hate speech and bigoted.
Post by
MyTie
Huh...so the largest religious group in America is a minority?Could you quote where I said this please.
Also, it's amusing that people say they want to be treated with respect for their opinions...then seem shocked that what is said, IE homosexuality is a sin, makes people angry. You can talk about how 'good Christians' can't speak the truth without being labeled a bigot or throwing hate speech...but the issue is, some of what they are saying is hate speech and bigoted.
No, Adamsm. Thinking that homosexuality is a sin is not bigoted. Go look up the definition of bigoted. Go on. Use google.
Post by
Adamsm
Huh...so the largest religious group in America is a minority?Could you quote where I said this please.Did you not read the title of the thing you linked?Also, I never said it was you MyTie; I was commenting on the article.
Also, it's amusing that people say they want to be treated with respect for their opinions...then seem shocked that what is said, IE homosexuality is a sin, makes people angry. You can talk about how 'good Christians' can't speak the truth without being labeled a bigot or throwing hate speech...but the issue is, some of what they are saying is hate speech and bigoted.
No, Adamsm. Thinking that homosexuality is a sin is not bigoted. Go look up the definition of bigoted. Go on. Use google.
It really is MyTie; especially since it's suppose to be 'hate the sin, not the sinner' but so many people use that as an excuse to throw hateful hurtful comments at the homosexual population...such as the speaker for article you linked; look above at the portion I quoted.
Post by
Monday
It really is MyTie; especially since it's suppose to be 'hate the sin, not the sinner' but so many people use that as an excuse to throw hateful hurtful comments at the homosexual population...such as the speaker for article you linked; look above at the portion I quoted.
Your conclusion != your premise. Homosexuality is a sin as defined in the Bible. Thinking that doesn't make one bigoted. Acting in an un-Christlike behavior and being hateful IS bigoted. However, that has nothing to do with the actual definition.
Post by
Eccentrica
It really is MyTie; especially since it's suppose to be 'hate the sin, not the sinner' but so many people use that as an excuse to throw hateful hurtful comments at the homosexual population...such as the speaker for article you linked; look above at the portion I quoted.
Your conclusion != your premise. Homosexuality is a sin as defined in the Bible. Thinking that doesn't make one bigoted. Acting in an un-Christlike behavior and being hateful IS bigoted. However, that has nothing to do with the actual definition.
According to the Bible, homosexuality is not a sin. The sins are as follows:
Gula (gluttony)
Fornicatio (fornication, lust)
Avaritia (avarice/greed)
Superbia (hubris, pride)
Tristitia (sorrow/despair/despondency)
Ira (wrath)
Vanagloria (vainglory)
Acedia (sloth)
The ten commandments don't mention homosexuality either. If god is omnipotent then he never makes mistakes, so the only true bible is the original one and any 'revisions' are heresy.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.