No, your replacement doesn't work either, you did not produce a statement showing that it works......AND....you, like Billy and Wake refuse to produce an equal statement that would cause the walkout in the first place that has any logical underpinnings.
This is a statement of belief in the infallibility of a religion. You have no problem criticizing Islam when it promotes the persecution of homosexuality . But if christianity is the source of persecution, the condemnation of homosexuals, you defend it.....via infallibility.I also don't think these instances of homosexuals being bullied by some "Christian" bullies should be used (as) on (sic) an attack against Christianity;
Yes, the agenda of equality of human beings.to me it seems like some are using these tragedies to further their own agenda.
Logic is not based on world views, it is a matter of rational explanation.Logical according to your worldview.
You keep bring up this totally fabricated argument, no one is debating their "right", and they can be insulted for doing it when it is not rational. Your "fairness" is a false equivalence.If any students feel offended, they have the right to walk out and I feel they shouldn't have to be insulted for doing so. That's what it means to be fair. It is unfair to say it's perfectly acceptable for gay students to walk out when offended, then have some people insult/ridicule those Christian students who also decide to leave when offended.
(1) This is a statement of belief in the infallibility of a religion. (2) You have no problem criticizing Islam when it promotes the persecution of homosexuality . But if christianity is the source of persecution, the condemnation of homosexuals, you defend it.....via infallibility.
(3) Yes, the agenda of equality of human beings.
This is a statement of belief in the infallibility of a religion. You have no problem criticizing Islam when it promotes the persecution of homosexuality . But if christianity is the source of persecution, the condemnation of homosexuals, you defend it.....via infallibility.
I never said there weren't homosexual students that were bullied. Bullies need to be placed in jail; my beliefs are Draconian when it comes to punishing them. It is not Christian to bully people. One can give their opinion that homosexuality is a sin, yet do so in a way as to not bully others.
(1) Logic is not based on world views, it is a matter of rational explanation.
(2) You keep bring up this totally fabricated argument, no one is debating their "right", and they can be insulted for doing it when it is not rational. Your "fairness" is a false equivalence.
You proved my point.(1) Believing my religion to be true, I'm disinclined to consider it fallible.
The only difference is the CURRENT mode of punishment, christians have killed homosexuals in the name of god and the Bible in the past, the condemnation used still exists, it is continually cited. You cannot say you would fight against the persecution by christians of gays who use the Bible as justification and still support the text that encourages that action. Again, what stops you is this belief in the infallibility in the text.(2) That is a bit different. Some "Christian" bullies bullying homosexual students is far different from the way more devout Islamists treat homosexuals. That and then you have the radical Islamists, who kill them. I don't feel preaching/opining that homosexualityh is a Biblical sin is the persecution of homosexuals; in America every person has the right to give voice to their beliefs. If there were some "Christians" who actively called for the jailing/killing/bullying of homosexuals I'd be fighting against it.
LOL....that is NOT the agenda of homosexuals that you implied you knew. That is YOUR "agenda". You can't keep your context straight. How embarrassing.(3) That is a nice way of stating your belief. Here's my nice way of stating my belief: the agenda of saving people from an eternity in Hell.
Geez, you cannot keep track of what the point was, you are totally confused.(1) Religion isn't logical, because it requires belief. Not everything in our existence is necessitates logic. There doesn't need to be a "logical explanation" for why a walkout should happen, as if that justifies Dan's crude behavior. How about don't be an ass to people when giving a speech? Do that instead of trying little semantic ways to justify his base behavior.
I am not playing semantics, there has NEVER been a debate about the "rights" of the "offended" students. Their action can be insulted if their actions are irrational, and Savage has that right.Ignoring your game of semantics, I think any students have the right to walk out when offended while also not having to be insulted for doing so.
I never said there weren't homosexual students that were bullied. Bullies need to be placed in jail; my beliefs are Draconian when it comes to punishing them. It is not Christian to bully people.
One can give their opinion that homosexuality is a sin, yet do so in a way as to not bully others. I also don't think these instances of homosexuals being bullied by some "Christian" bullies should be used on an attack against Christianity; to me it seems like some are using these tragedies to further their own agenda.
Whether you are gay or not, you shouldn't be bullied, you do have the right to civilly leave, and I fell you shouldn't be insulted for doing so. Also, whether a gay activist or a Christian activist, I don't think you should act like an ass when trying to spread your message.
It is not the same, Billy, but then maybe the problem is that you don't know the difference between an inanimate object (a book) and an animated one (a person).
(1) One point I've been making in this discussion is that all kinds of students should have the right to leave civilly without being castigated.
(2) We're probably not going to agree on this. My religion is very important to me, and you see it as merely a book. I also feel you're distorting the points I'm trying to convey, one of the main ones being in point #1. When I refer to "the show on the other foot," I'm referring to those people on one side of the spectrum who view homosexuality as a sin, and those people on the other who don't view it as a sin and support the concept of homosexuality. Also, I don't think there is such a thing as a gay Christian, just like I don't think there are adulterous Christians; the Bible explicitly mentions those things as sin and warns Christians of it. There is a difference, though, if a Christian has had gay temptations or was gay, but is trying his/her best to change and follow the Word of God. Those are my thoughts on the matter.
we have very different views on this issue and like oil and water our beliefs cannot really mix. You feel God created homosexuality and that it is alright, I feel it is a sin and that it is mentioned as such in the Bible both OT and NT.
Ah yes, the "no True Scotsman" argument - often seen on the xian side these days.
OK, it is seen on any side of any argument where those on one side can only agree with certain folks if they have a common enemy, as soon as that first opponent is gone/dead/defeated, the former allies turn on each other.
Wake wrote:
This is the central point of Dan Savage's speech, how can one who claims to follow the strictures found in the Bible on condemning homosexuality be anything but a hypocrite when they don't follow the other laws and commands in that same text? How do you make the choice on which commands you follow and which ones you ignore?
Their counter is that they are excused from following the OT, but when asked about the 10 commandments, they go silent.Wake wrote:
This is the central point of Dan Savage's speech, how can one who claims to follow the strictures found in the Bible on condemning homosexuality be anything but a hypocrite when they don't follow the other laws and commands in that same text? How do you make the choice on which commands you follow and which ones you ignore?
Yeah...like love your neighbor, those without sin may cast the first stone...That point I will agree with Dan on. However, Dan was still being an asshole. Also, there are some verses in the NT that are virtually impossible to make happen in this day and age.
Wake wrote:
This is the central point of Dan Savage's speech, how can one who claims to follow the strictures found in the Bible on condemning homosexuality be anything but a hypocrite when they don't follow the other laws and commands in that same text? How do you make the choice on which commands you follow and which ones you ignore?
Exactly Billy, which is why Savage points out that christians are hypocrites for condemning gays. Christ did not say "love thy neighbor...but it is ok to condemn, kill.....homosexual neighbors."Disclaimer: No great biblical scholar but I do believe Jesus said there were 2 Commandments which "all the laws of Moses and the prophets hinge".
1. Love God with your whole heart, etc.
and the 2nd was "liken to it"
2. Love thy neighbor as they self.
Sounds like those were the most important to Jesus. And IMHO, those 2 kinda sum it all up.
Disclaimer: No great biblical scholar but I do believe Jesus said there were 2 Commandments which "all the laws of Moses and the prophets hinge".
1. Love God with your whole heart, etc.
and the 2nd was "liken to it"
2. Love thy neighbor as they self.
Sounds like those were the most important to Jesus. And IMHO, those 2 kinda sum it all up.
Exactly Billy, which is why Savage points out that christians are hypocrites for condemning gays. Christ did not say "love thy neighbor...but it is ok to condemn, kill.....homosexual neighbors."
Which is totally contradicted by condemning to hell homosexuals.I think you're misrepresenting things.
"Hate the sin, not the sinner."
You can love fellow sinners, yet hate the sin.
Which is totally contradicted by condemning to hell homosexuals.
Billy, Billy, Billy....no one has said that the little kiddies were killing gays.....we call that a straw argument.Ah now Grimme, the children came in sat down with their teacher, Savage went into his "supposedly anti-bullying" which was really an anti-Christian tirade, the children got up and walked out. Savage called them "pansed asses". No "homosexual neighbors" were harmed by the children.
I know you want that to be so, but it didn't happen the way you wanted it to happen.
Originally Posted by Somerville
This is the central point of Dan Savage's speech, how can one who claims to follow the strictures found in the Bible on condemning homosexuality be anything but a hypocrite when they don't follow the other laws and commands in that same text? How do you make the choice on which commands you follow and which ones you ignore?
That point I will agree with Dan on. However, Dan was still being an asshole. Also, there are some verses in the NT that are virtually impossible to make happen in this day and age.
It is not your place to condemn, to act as god, that is above your pay grade.It is not when you state that homosexuality/homosexual acts is sin.
I would hope that you don't confuse a verb with a noun.During my time on DP I've made it clear that I view homosexuality as sin, not homosexuals. There is an important difference.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?