"God will even the score"

[Faith No More]

How about, "God wants so much more for you than what you are currently settling for."

But what if that statement is inconsistent with her beliefs? What if she truly does believe that god hates those that push a certain agenda and wants nothing to do with them? You've already stated that you feel it is justified to tell others that you believe pushing the homosexual agenda is leading people on the path to hell, but I'm sure we could find Christians that disagree with you. Why are you allowed to condemn others in a certain manner but hers is inappropriate?

What you fail to be missing is that no matter how you dress it up, the underlying message of both your message and hers is that god is going to send you to hell for what you're doing. It is by its very nature not a gentle nor a compassionate idea.

[Chas]

It seems to me, Chad, that those facts are very much open to debate.

People can argue about what constitutes a sin and the degree of sinneyness involved. That is why a good dose of humility is warranted.
But speaking out against what you believe is wrong is just part of the marketplace of ideas. As a general principle, I find it commendable that people who feel passionately about a cause advocate strongly for it, it the most civil way possible.

Here is an interesting question: Suppose I say sodomy is a sin and that since you advocate sodomy (not you personally), then you are leading people into damnation. What do you care, if you do not believe in sin in the first place?

Keep in mind, I have a libertarian attitude towards marriage. Marriage is a religious sacrament that should be neither endorsed, promoted or thwarted by the State.

Marriage is a civil contract that religions have tried to co-opt.

I don't care what your church defines as marriage.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Marriage is a civil contract that religions have tried to co-opt.

It's more complicated than that. Historically, the status of marriage has always been culturally dependent. In the West, it has been a religious institution to which common law adapted itself. That has made it difficult to disentangle the religious and legal aspects. In contemporary society I agree that we should continue this process until everyone has a state recognized civil arrangement. Then believers can join couples in accordance with the principles of their religion as they choose without the state being obligated to recognize such convenents. So in the West at least, the reverse has happened; the state co-opted a religious institution.

I don't care what your church defines as marriage.

And that is your right.

---

You've already stated that you feel it is justified to tell others that you believe pushing the homosexual agenda is leading people on the path to hell, but I'm sure we could find Christians that disagree with you.

People can always disagree. And as long as they do so with grace, I think people should be free to hash out these ideas. Unfortunately, some activists want to equate preaching against homosexuality as a form of hate speech. I find that much more objectionable.

And yes, I do think sodomy is a sin. Even heterosexuals deal with various fetishes and compulsions that are also sins. So its not a prejudice against any set of people, but rather a range of sexual practices that are contrary to God's gift of sexual pleasure.

My concern remains limited to the cultural acceptance, and promotion, of practices I believe are harmful to the soul. If you think that's bullshit, that is your right and you can say its bullshit. But I think trying to characterize me as a bigot that hates gay people is not only inaccurate ; it reveals a fascist attitude of activists who disagree and cannot tolerate any difference of opinion from their own.

Sure there are Christians that disagree with me, and I with them. Is it not also possible that there people who engage in homosexual activities who disagree with homosexual activists and and their approach?

[Ryantology]

It seems to me, Chad, that those facts are very much open to debate.

People can argue about what constitutes a sin and the degree of sinneyness involved. That is why a good dose of humility is warranted.

Perhaps a good dose of 'everybody should mind their own personal business and stay out of everyone else's' is warranted. That would be the libertarian approach, after all.

But speaking out against what you believe is wrong is just part of the marketplace of ideas. As a general principle, I find it commendable that people who feel passionately about a cause advocate strongly for it, it the most civil way possible.

Yes, well, I don't really consider threatening people with untold horrors by proxy with an angry God to be a civil approach to anything, but I do concede that, for Christianity, making impotent threats represents considerable progress.

[Faith No More]

People can always disagree. And as long as they do so with grace, I think people should be free to hash out these ideas. Unfortunately, some activists want to equate preaching against homosexuality as a form of hate speech. I find that much more objectionable.

You are more than welcome to preach against homosexuality from your pulpits. When that preaching crosses into the public forum, a conglomerate of different religious viewpoints, your right to condemn others becomes limited. A person may very well believe that using computers is a sin, but they do not have the right to deny others their liberties based upon those beliefs.

I object to your finding it labeled as hate speech as "much more objectionable." While hate speech is most likely the incorrect term, to claim saying it is hate speech is worse than telling people they deserve to go to hell is just a weak and illegitimate attempt at pointing the finger back at your accuser.

And yes, I do think sodomy is a sin. Even heterosexuals deal with various fetishes and compulsions that are also sins. So its not a prejudice against any set of people, but rather a range of sexual practices that are contrary to God's gift of sexual pleasure.

These, however, are just your beliefs. I believe country music rots the brain and is a detriment to society, but I do recognize the rights of others to listen to what they please.

My concern remains limited to the cultural acceptance, and promotion, of practices I believe are harmful to the soul. If you think that's bullshit, that is your right and you can say its bullshit.

Your concern is not bullshit. What is bullshit is to think that religious beliefs give anyone a right to dictate how others live.

But I think trying to characterize me as a bigot that hates gay people is not only inaccurate ; it reveals a fascist attitude of activists who disagree and cannot tolerate any difference of opinion from their own.

When did I characterize you as a bigot? Are you referring to the KKK comment? That was just to show that opinions and beliefs don't give anyone the right to deny others their liberties.

Labeling someone a bigot is not a fascist attitude, anyways. It is expressing the idea that the position person holds is unreasonable and based upon uncontrollable factors. It is similar to labeling anyone who doesn't agree with your(not you) political beliefs an 'idiot.'

And of course not all religious people that think homosexuality is a sin are bigots. The ones that are simply using god as prejudice by proxy are bigots. There are plenty of others that are just misguided.

[Neo-Scholastic]

FNM your response is generally measure and well thought out. Clearly we have much common ground. We also agree that many believers do cross the line. I do not know from what country you hail. As an American, I would be very concerned the tacit acceptance of restrictions on the essential liberties of free exercise of religion and freedom of speech. As for example.

You are more than welcome to preach against homosexuality from your pulpits. When that preaching crosses into the public forum, a conglomerate of different religious viewpoints, your right to condemn others becomes limited.

Placing restrictions on opinionated speech based is never acceptible. If neo-Nazi groups or the Black Panthers want to pass out literature and march in public, they have the right to do so. I can ignore, respond, or ridicule them. If I go out all dandied up and someone on the street calls me a fag, I can tell him to fuck off. It's not always pretty, pleasant or comfortable, but that's how free speech works. The second, we start to say communists can pass out pamphlets but Jehovah Witnesses cannot, is the second we cease to be free.

... they do not have the right to deny others their liberties based upon those beliefs.

For the believer, practicing our faith is not confined to weekend worship services and potlucks. It affects all aspects of our life, including how we live and participate in society at large. While many here fear the intrusion of religion into political matters, the actual trend has been the other way around.

Here in Illinois, doctors and pharmacists that oppose abortion must violate their sincerely held believes to provide abortion procedures and drugs and they are not permitted to instead refer clients to associates that do not have problems with abortion.

In this example, the liberties of the person seeking abortion drugs have not been denied. They are free to buy their drugs elsewhere. On the other hand, the pharmacist has been denied her liberty. The State is dictating what she must do.

I recognize the fact that professionals with licenses take on certain obligations to serve the public good, but I do not see forcing them to violate the tenets of their religion a legitimate use of state power. What's the next step, telling observant Jewish pharmacists that they must stay open on Saturday just in case a 13-year old wants to by Plan-B?

In other word, Pro-Abortion groups are imposing their beliefs on people trying to live according to the dictates of their religion. Not the other way around.

What is bullshit is to think that religious beliefs give anyone a right to dictate how others live.

That depends on your use of the word 'dictate'. If you mean using the coercive power of the state to force people to do our not do things against their conscience then, yes, I fully agree. But if I want to publicly condemn fornication, sodomy, sadism, and pre-marital sex, I should be free to do so. And you should be free to promote public acceptance of these practices.

But I do not have the right to legally interfere with the private lives of others who are minding their own business nor do you have the right to legally prevent me from saying whatever I want (so long as I am not threatening immediate violence.)

Labeling someone a bigot is not a fascist attitude, anyways. It is expressing the idea that the position person holds is unreasonable and based upon uncontrollable factors.

Uncontrolable factors? Apart from rape, I seems that people are pretty much in control of with whom and how they choose to have sex.

Everyone has innate desires, often very strong desires, and sometimes evil and self-destructive ones. But unless they are mentally unstable they have some control over how they act on those desires. Some people have a genetic disposition toward alcoholism. And even if they can never fully purge themselves of their desire for drink, they can and many do take control of their lives.

So if I say to my sister, "You're a drunk and you need to clean up your life." Does that make be a bigot for calling her a drunk?

Race and biological sex are uncontrollable. Being born with a congenital disease is uncontrollable. And I will conceed that being born with an innate sexual desire for same-sex. How we act on our desires is a choice.

[Minimalist]

What is the "gentle or compassionate approach" for communicating "my god hates you and is going to send you to hell"?

How about, "God wants so much more for you than what you are currently settling for."

God can go fuck himself.

And his believers can go fuck themselves.


Doesn't really matter how you try to tone it down. You still come across as a pompous and self-righteous asshole.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Doesn't really matter how you try to tone it down. You still come across as a pompous and self-righteous asshole.

Coming from a vulgar self-absorbed ass like you, I'll take that as a compliment.

[Captain Colostomy]

Takes one to know one...classy, but I prefer up your nose with a rubber hose.

[Bad Writer]

He's just trying to speak a language all can understand. I'd say it's working.