14 Jul 15
Originally posted by Rank outsiderWhat would you think honestly, I have to answer a question that being called immoral is
So we understand the ground rules.
If I say (as I believe) that any God that tortures people in hell for all eternity is infinitely evil, would you regard this as:
1 Hate-speech
2 Disrespectful
3 Rude
Would your view change if I added that any person who supports this doctrine is immoral?
personal?
14 Jul 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeI'm going to do my level best not to insult anyone, that said expressing a view for or evenI think it is quite different bad mouthing an idea verses bad mouthing a person.
I agree.
However when the idea is a core part of that persons identity, questioning that idea/belief is very often
taken, by that person, as an attack on that person.
[quote]I also think if you really wanted to, you could debate an idea without being ...[text shortened]... laws are so tricky, because it's almost impossible to speak without offending someone somewhere.
against another idea can sometimes be insulting. Why, because it isn't how the idea was
expressed, it isn't the intent, but how it was received that makes it insulting. I can walk into
a room and sit down without looking at anyone, and if I sit next to someone they could be
insulted by my actions, looks, and so on. I cannot control that, I pledge that I'm not going
to on purpose direct any insults or even bait anyone in August. I can still insult someone
without trying too and even trying not too, that part has nothing to do with me.
I'll even do you one better, I'll attempt to grow thicker skin, meaning that I see that
anyone speaking to me not trying to insult me and I get insulted, unless it is something
very important, I'll just let it go, or if it is, a personal message my come out explaining
why.
Originally posted by googlefudgeEvidence nil you gloomy faced morosite! The gospels are the most highly credible historical accounts of ancient history we have. I am fed up with your prejudices and empty lectures! lets put your ludicrous assertions to the test shall we and ask a few historians and respected sources what they think,
The historical evidence as properly analysed by a qualified historian indicates that the
stories were overwhelmingly likely to be entirely fiction.
It's not a certainty, but it's highly probable.
It is a certainty [beyond any reasonable doubt] that even if a historical JC existed that that person
was not the actual son of god, and that that person did not come back from the dead.
That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospel. - respected historian Will Durant -
http://frankviola.org/2012/09/10/willdurant/
"These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries." - Encyclopedia Britannica
You appear to be the only author of fiction here!
14 Jul 15
Originally posted by josephwYes, I think basically I do.
[b]"If I say (as I believe) that any God that tortures people in hell for all eternity is infinitely evil, would you regard this as:
1 Hate-speech
2 Disrespectful
3 Rude"
No. Your opinion, and it is your right to express it.
"Would your view change if I added that any person who supports this doctrine is immoral?"
Again, that would ...[text shortened]... n mind is one thing, but it goes to far to publicly call another immoral.
Wouldn't you agree?[/b]
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
14 Jul 15
Originally posted by SuzianneThankyou for making my point.
Yes, well, when one states that such beliefs are immoral, incoherent, dangerous, moronic, ephemeral, fantastical, made-up, disingenuous, fairy-tales, fraudulent, deceitful, nonsensical, hypocrisy, guile, dissimulation, duplicitous, insincere, dishonest, deceiving... (you see where I'm going with this), what is anyone supposed to think this says about ...[text shortened]... f such beliefs?
Only that they themselves are all these things. Not too respectful, is it?
14 Jul 15
Originally posted by vivifyCheckbaiter, you someone who seems as genuine about their faith (peace, love, kindness, etc.) as you is great to see. You've been very a pleasant fellow.
In a different thread, a few people have decided to designate August as a hate-free, disrespect-free, and rude-free month for the spirituality forum. You can see more here:
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=164799&page=1#post_3431470
In preparation for this, anyone willing to state (here or on this thread) that they will, no matte ...[text shortened]... f your personalities here; but I will do it, no matter how much we may have clashed in the past.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
14 Jul 15
Originally posted by Suzianne
But if you were to state any heart-felt belief in God or something in the Bible and someone came up to you and said to you, "I think that belief is hideously immoral", what do you think they are saying, that "Oh, but I imagine you yourself are an incredibly moral, upstanding gentleman"?
No, they think you are as "hideously immoral" as what you believe. Do we think Nazis were all nice guys, that it was only their beliefs that were immoral? No.
No, they think you are as "hideously immoral" as what you believe.
No, we/I don't.
Because [generally] you don't act in full accordance with your beliefs, because you
are better than your religion.
The problem is that you are not as good as you could be if you didn't have your religion dragging you down.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
14 Jul 15
Originally posted by vivifyI will (continue to) strive to keep my disagreements from being hateful, disrespectful or rude.
In a different thread, a few people have decided to designate August as a hate-free, disrespect-free, and rude-free month for the spirituality forum. You can see more here:
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=164799&page=1#post_3431470
In preparation for this, anyone willing to state (here or on this thread) that they will, no matte ...[text shortened]... f your personalities here; but I will do it, no matter how much we may have clashed in the past.
14 Jul 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeShe could be even better if she did not have Darwin's theory of evolution and so-called billions of years of prehistoric history dragging her down. 😏No, they think you are as "hideously immoral" as what you believe.
No, we/I don't.
Because [generally] you don't act in full accordance with your beliefs, because you
are better than your religion.
The problem is that you are not as good as you could be if you didn't have your religion dragging you down.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
14 Jul 15
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOn Will Durant:
Evidence nil you gloomy faced morosite! The gospels are the most highly credible historical accounts of ancient history we have. I am fed up with your prejudices and empty lectures! lets put your ludicrous assertions to the test shall we and ask a few historians and respected sources what they think,
That a few simple men should in one generati ...[text shortened]... 20th centuries." - Encyclopedia Britannica
You appear to be the only author of fiction here!
quote:
A “reluctant” atheist, Will Durant’s conclusions on Christianity and religion, articulated in a gentle satirical style in his “Story of Civilization” and “Lessons of History,” provide a formidable and authentic view by which one may learn, and possibly understand, the atheistic “persuasion” regarding disbelief in God. This historic view quietly enumerates a philosophic disbelief in God by specifying the collusive role religion and the state have played in controlling humanity. The effect of this domination is the constraint of the individual free will and, as a consequence, individual freedom as actualized by the mesmerization of the civilized masses through the cynical manipulation of power by secular governing institutions.
Durant’s writings, as excellent as they are, raise the question as to how objective can a historian be when prejudiced by a philosopher’s calling that concludes that God does not exist in assessing the history of mankind? At least as far as Durant is concerned, the answer to this question has a very interesting resolution, an answer the reader will hopefully discern by the patient reading of the following.
[followed by detailed examples and discussions of WD's secular approach to history]
unquote
http://comingtoknowchrist.blogspot.com/2005/12/will-durant-and-belief-in-jesus-christ.html
WD saw the historian as someone committed to a secular explanation of the past, much like scientist are committed to methodological naturalism. This does not mean that the historian and scientist must be atheists, but it means they have to leave their religious beliefs about history or science at the door when doing history or science.
14 Jul 15
Originally posted by SuzianneThing is though, Suzianne, I don't care what anyone thinks of me! I only care what God thinks of me because I am what God thinks of me.
But if you were to state any heart-felt belief in God or something in the Bible and someone came up to you and said to you, "I think that belief is hideously immoral", what do you think they are saying, that "Oh, but I imagine you yourself are an incredibly moral, upstanding gentleman"?
No, they think you are as "hideously immoral" as what you believe. Do we think Nazis were all nice guys, that it was only their beliefs that were immoral? No.
When someone says that God is evil, and subsequently says I am evil too for believing God, then I know I'm on the right path!
It's a guarantee that you will be spoken evil of as a Christian. The more Godly a life one lives the greater the persecution. There's no escaping it.