Discussing historical texts and baiting

Post Reply New Topic

Hate speech alert.

https://wrongplanet.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=20&p=8600586#p8600586

You are confusing "Hate speech" with the truth.
It is either in or not, in the Bible.
Check it out yourself:

https://www.michurch.org.au/homo-bible/ ... -and-2013/

I agree, this isn't hate speech. This is directly quoted from the bible and I doubt fnord is endorsing it.

Not intended as such ... just me proving someone wrong again ... someone who said it wasn't in the Bible.

The thing is that the "sin" it mentioned was neutralized and the penalty was negated later ... in the Bible!

But no one ever pays attention to that.

Pepe, I am a Christian, and I don’t care who knows it. I know the Bible at least as well as Fnord, if not better. The problem is something either is hate speech or it isn’t, and whether you love the Bible as much as I do changes nothing. If something violates site rules, no matter how holy the scripture, if it speaks against victim classes, it’s not allowed on WP.

The main issue is that when it comes to discussing victim classes, specifically those who are victim classes BECAUSE of a religion, on WP you are allowed to drag any religion you want because it calls out the victim du jour. What you are NOT allowed to do is to defend religious penalties for the behavior or discuss logically why penalizing it might actually be justified. When you are dealing with a sincerely held belief, in this case something offensive to a specific, protected, victim class, what happens is the Christian in the room gets openly persecuted while nobody is allowed to touch perpetual victims.

It is a tactic I have seen unbelievers on WP often and frequently use in the past to chase Christians out of PPR and the website as a whole. What Christians overlook is that BAITING Christians into incriminating discussions is ALSO against WP rules. If an unbeliever quotes supposedly offensive Bible passages, or even if someone representing a victim class view quotes them to make a point, I will ALWAYS report it to mods if I see it. I won’t tolerate Christians being persecuted for their convictions on this website.

I actually agree with you, but I’ve tried having this discussion before and got an “official warning” over it. These days I prefer to ask the question “where in the gospels does Jesus tell His followers to kill homosexuals?” It’s Paul who later explains the reasoning behind the OT penalty, though Paul does not propose enforcing harsh penalties moving forward. My problem is there is no fair way to discuss it on this website, so I strongly discourage ANYONE even bringing it up.

On a purely personal note, proving someone wrong is always fun. Otherwise, it seems the matter has been addressed and I need speak of it no more.

One thing that should be remembered: the Bible was a product of its times.

And what we read, in the vast majority of instances in English-speaking countries, is substance which is translated from the original Greek/Aramaic/Hebrew---and into either Early Modern English, or Modern English.

This. This is one reason why I'm not a believer.

Quoting a historical text is not against the rules

The last paragraph makes zero sense.

"If (anyone- believer or not) quotes a passage of the Bible that is...supposedly offensive...."?

Dude...Its holy scripture...so how can it ever be "offensive"?

Your issue is not that the person quoting such a passage from the Bible is "offended" by it. Your issue is that YOU yourself get embarrassed by the person quoting it.

What you're really saying is that you want WP to protect YOU from being embarrassed by folks quoting certain stuff in Bible! Which is an absurd thing to ask of the site.

Biden supporters hafta put up with folks posting vids of Biden rambling on about "guys getting yellow hairs on their legs in the sun". Trump supporters have to put up with their guy being quoted and or seen in vids talking about injecting ammonia into your arm and shooting UV light up your ass to cure covid, slurring his speech, and getting so confused about history that he thinks the George Washington's armies "seized all of the airports" (not to mention him also encouraging his supporters to commit felonies like assault, and double voting). So why are you entitled to greater embarrassment protection than the rest of us?

Oh, that's interesting! In all seriousness, I'd like a clarification of what IS allowed, because I've been accused before of "hate speech" because I chose to take a position defending the particular verse in question. My point was never to suggest anyone harm homosexuals, but rather to explore whether there might have been a particular reason why the Old Testament prohibited homosexuality and whether the death penalty was justified. It seems it's ok to quote scripture in order to ATTACK a particular religion, but never to discuss the morality of homosexuality or its potential harm to society.

I'm not bringing this up to debate it in a non-debate thread, and I'm certainly not intending anything which might be inflammatory or hurtful. What I'm asking is, what are the proper boundaries here? If it is acceptable to attack a religious view, it's only fair that the same view can also be DEFENDED. If it is improper or harmful to other WP members to defend a view, as in whether the death penalty for homosexuality in the OT context was appropriate or justified, then surely it's just as improper or harmful to start a discussion in which someone with an opposing viewpoint CANNOT (by WP rules) respond. I think it's important to be fair to ALL WP members, not protected classes alone.

Any guidance here would be greatly appreciated.

Well as far as drawing a line, I will say that defending a belief that it's justified to kill people based on a sexual orientation is well past the line. I'd even say promoting the belief that it's wrong to be gay is wrong too. If that's what you believe, keep it to yourself. After all, everyone involved is a consenting adult. No one is trying to make you gay, I don't see how it hurts anyone.



Hope that helps.

It does help, Alex; and thank you.

The distinction is you can believe what you want and follow whatever moral codes you like on a personal basis. Feel free to share those as long as you make it clear that you personally don't believe it's something you'd do. But when you begin to dictate to others how they should live their lives and it involves telling them that they are bad or evil or just doing something immoral when it isn't hurting anyone, that's not ok.

Not quite. Is it acceptable to bait someone into expressing a certain attitude? I’d be fine keeping things to myself* AS LONG AS others are similarly respectful or tolerant of my own views. If someone claims to hold to a Biblical view of morality and someone were to ask if that also means they believe homosexuality is immoral, that person would have to say, yes, it’s immoral. Then that person could be disciplined simply because someone else asked a question. Is it still wrong to bait someone into saying something offensive when he might not ordinarily say it otherwise?

*My actual view is that what someone does in his own bedroom is nobody else’s business. It has been made abundantly clear what views are welcome and not. In my efforts to abide by rules I’ve been accused of COVERT hate. It’s a bit much.

Ok...this makes more sense, more what I was getting at. I’ve been reported to mods for doing EXACTLY THAT: “ Feel free to share those as long as you make it clear that you personally don't believe it's something you'd do.” And been given warnings for doing so.

That has been a long time at this point, so I’m hoping this represents a more equitable understanding of how certain views can be approached within this forum.

Thanks, Alex. I believe I can take things from here.