Continued theology discussion... Not sure what to call this really....

[chergh]

Whereas Chergh is full of religiuos bigotry

So why have you not done the same for the other bigots? The ones that described people of other religions and those without faith as evil?

 

[Pauldohert]

So why have you not done the same for the other bigots? The ones that described people of other religions and those without faith as evil?

Cos your pulling the oldest childrens trick in the book - " but so and so did this ..".

They may or may not have - but you chose to offend the general religiuos - extra to anyone who offended you - by calling God a dick.

Grow up - and just take heed that being offensive - especially in such a thread isn't the way to go.

I don't know why that concept is so difficult?

 

[chergh]

Cos your pulling the oldest childrens trick in the book - " but so and so did this ..".

Yet this is exactly what you did when you insulted me.

They may or may not have - but you chose to offend the general religiuos - extra to anyone who offended you - by calling God a dick.

Grow up - and just take heed that being offensive - especially in such a thread isn't the way to go.

I don't know why that concept is so difficult?

No I'm just pointing out you're a hypocrite. Theists in this thread have been insulting as I have also been insulting yet only my insulting remarks seems to merit a homophobic insult from you.

So theists can insult people, you can insult me but I can't be insulting?

 

[Pauldohert]

Yet this is exactly what you did when you insulted me.

No I'm just pointing out you're a hypocrite. Theists in this thread have been insulting as I have also been insulting yet only my insulting remarks seems to merit a homophobic insult from you.

So theists can insult people, you can insult me but I can't be insulting?

I feel sorry for you truly. That you need to construct a bizarre rationale based upon twisting words till they become suitably useable lies and untruths - just to justify your general right to carry on being offensive to those with religiuos views.

Thats is the only point of your agrgument after all isn't it? Even if a valid one - you want to as offensive as you want. Even if my argument was invalid - I simply tried to illustrate to you that its probably not a good way to go - by simply using your word back to you.

If you dont accept that general point and learn a little respect - well frankly there is no hope for you.

 

[Adam Caramon]

However I just used the exact offensive terminology from Cherghs previous post, to pull him up a bit.

This is the part that is actually different though. If you had said "You know chergh, you're a real dick." That would be using it in the same context he did. You could replace the word with a million other generic "you suck" type insults, and it would be no big deal. But the way you phrased it totally changed the meaning.

Whereas Chergh is full of religiuos bigotry - which you think musn't be countered with a Graham Norton one liner. Please - get real.

Honestly, I don't know who Graham Norton is. I think chergh is being insulting to religious people, and I think you're free to insult him back. I think it makes more sense to insult his point of view, his thoughts, etc., rather than how you did it though.

Even if my argument was invalid - I simply tried to illustrate to you that its probably not a good way to go - by simply using your word back to you.

Now that, I think we can all agree on.

 

[Pauldohert]

This is the part that is actually different though. If you had said "You know chergh, you're a real dick." That would be using it in the same context he did. You could replace the word with a million other generic "you suck" type insults, and it would be no big deal. But the way you phrased it totally changed the meaning.

It was a play on words - ie - it could have been read " I bet you love God though dont you!" If chergh beleives that a valid substitution - ie God for dick, then its not really offensive is it?

It at least got chergh to think - ie thats not a valid substitution - cos he chose a differnat one for himself - he chose to take offense at the other meaning.

If it wasn't a valid substitution for himself - he shouldn't have used it for others.

That should have been enough for him to get the point - before launching into and Ali G type defence, to try and deflect the critisism away from himself.
---

So no - I dont agree - that I simply called him a homosexual and was homophobic. - Calling someone a homosexual needn't be homophobic anyhow- but offence can be taken - if the recipient is homophobic clearly.

Cherghs offended by his own word - and his own attitude. And should have got him to think a bit , about what his offensive words mean.

Sadly no.

I could have done it a differant way yes - but would he have taken any notice - if I hadn't held a mirror up to his words. Probably not - but then he hasn't anyway.


I apologise for any offense - its best avoided. That was my real point.

Chergh needs to learn that -I suggest you may concentrate your efforts there.

 

[Rich]

One hundred percent lie, as you well know. That you have to resort to such tactics is low.

Ho hum - your problem not mine.

Shall I resurrect you argument with Kraj over yours and Catholics contention that gay couples should not be able to foster children,? Seems like you're blessed with a short memory

 

[Brianwarnock]

Shall I resurrect you argument with Kraj over yours and Catholics contention that gay couples should not be able to foster children,? Seems like you're blessed with a short memory

I was wondering about that but it was several years ago and therefore more difficult to dig out, but for any newcomers Kraj was an articulate member of the forum not afraid to admit that he was a Homosexual, however Paul's homophobic comments drove him away.

Brian

PS he will deny this of course.

 

[Alc]

I was wondering about that but it was several years ago and therefore more difficult to dig out, but for any newcomers Kraj was an articulate member of the forum not afraid to admit that he was a Homosexual, however Paul's homophobic comments drove him away.

Brian

PS he will deny this of course.

Credit where it's due, though. This time round, he hasn't yet resorted to swearing at Chergh, getting suspended from the forum, and coming back under a different name, until the suspension expires.

 

[ASherbuck]

But the news doesn't claim that you might die an eternal death in a lake of fire for not believing & living the life they say you should. I guess that's what separates the two to me.

What? You haven't been watching Fox lately have you? ::snicker::

 

[dan-cat]

And it's even more discriminatory for you to suggest that other members should not express they're opinions lest you're offended, big brother synndrome

Complete drivel. I never said anyone shouldn't express their point of view.

I only contested chergh's view that being deliberately offensive is ok.

 

[dan-cat]

Now, had Paul said "You're a dumb atheist", that would have been pit for pat, so to speak. But going to sexual orientation is really hateful.

The bottom line is this.

Chergh asserts that being offensive is ok. He has admitted that he is being deliberately so. His reasons he has admitted as a selfish cathartic process.

However with the reaction to Paul's statement we see that Chergh's assertion is completely unacceptable. The more you reject Paul's statement as offensive the more you reject chergh's assertion that offensive behavior is acceptable.

It is chergh's assertion that is under attack here. After all the heat over homophobia, do you think that being offensive is ok?

 

[dan-cat]

Shall I resurrect you argument with Kraj over yours and Catholics contention that gay couples should not be able to foster children,? Seems like you're blessed with a short memory

I was wondering about that but it was several years ago and therefore more difficult to dig out, but for any newcomers Kraj was an articulate member of the forum not afraid to admit that he was a Homosexual, however Paul's homophobic comments drove him away.

Brian

PS he will deny this of course.

Credit where it's due, though. This time round, he hasn't yet resorted to swearing at Chergh, getting suspended from the forum, and coming back under a different name, until the suspension expires.

Disappointed with all three of these statements.

Paul has actually apologised for any offense taken and yet you all choose to ignore this and focus on one of thousands of spats that have occured over the years in an attempt to discredit him.

To suggest Paul was the sole reason for Kraj leaving is a gross distortion of the truth. Kraj like many others grew tired of the general bickering nature of the boards and voted with his feet.

He also appreciated a good pun and wouldn't have taken as nearly as much offense as you are all feigning.

 

[Rich]

Complete drivel. I never said anyone shouldn't express their point of view.

I only contested chergh's view that being deliberately offensive is ok.

How about being deliberately offensive to say Bin Liner, Stalin. PolPot, etc.,etc?

 

[Rich]

The bottom line is this.

Chergh asserts that being offensive is ok. He has admitted that he is being deliberately so. His reasons he has admitted as a selfish cathartic process.

However with the reaction to Paul's statement we see that Chergh's assertion is completely unacceptable. The more you reject Paul's statement as offensive the more you reject chergh's assertion that offensive behavior is acceptable.

It is chergh's assertion that is under attack here. After all the heat over homophobia, do you think that being offensive is ok?

Not so, Chergh insulted a concept, Paul insulted a real person. end of story.

 

[Brianwarnock]

You got there before me Rich, however I have to say that althougth I would argue against a concept I would try to avoid being insulting and offensive , unfortunately may believe that merely to question their beliefs is insulting and offensive.
That wasn't the situation with Chergh and I don't hold with what he said, but for Paul to try and pretend that he has not been homophobic is just pathetic.

brian

 

[Brianwarnock]

Dan
The general bickering may have got to Kraj and I know that it is a factor in his not returning, but he left after a personal attack on himself.

Brian

 

[Rabbie]

Now lets get this stream back on to the original theme.

There is much in Christianity that I agree with especially its moral code and the emphasis on seeing the best in other people but the bit I can't accept is the belief in a supernatural. It seems to me that the the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth have been hijacked by the religious lobby who have added their own religious slant to the reports of his life as recored in the new testament. It is surely no coincidence that while Jesus chose 12 very ordinary people as his disciples it was a theology student(Paul) who came in and wrote most of the new testament.

 

[Pauldohert]

I was wondering about that but it was several years ago and therefore more difficult to dig out, but for any newcomers Kraj was an articulate member of the forum not afraid to admit that he was a Homosexual, however Paul's homophobic comments drove him away.

Brian

PS he will deny this of course.

Of course I am damned if I deny it.

Facts are I do not and never have disagreed with homosexuals having the right to adopt. Why not - I know a few gay couples who do make excellent parents. However I also agreed that parents should have the rights when giving up their child for adoption - to go with an agency who would choose a traditional family unit. They may also choose to go to a purely homosexual specialist agency. I'm not bothered - people can choose.

That I dont beleive makes me a homphobic person - and a bit of truth from some of the others here wouldn't be amiss. Its hardly as portrayed by others in in slurs upon me anyhow.

As for Kraj - yes he did leave , amidst a thread about the above topic. And as he did so - he complained of the genaral bickering and named checked Rich in particular. Not myself - if he meant myself - once again I apologise. There was no personnel insult, certainly not an intended one anyhow.

If offence was taken once again - 5 years later I apologise.


If Kraj did leave cos he thought a level of homophobia existed, then I can only apologise - as I tried to make my position clear as the time and belive I did so.

But with people like Rich and Brian around - who constantly want to misrepresent views, lie and slur people in other to get their kicks out of pretending their is some real homophobic abuse and start a fight it becomes difficult.

Thats the facts of the matter.

Brian - we never did have that pint - mainly because you went back to your snide comments before it was arranged. Maybe I could to suggest Jupiters - its a gay bar in town - I frequent to have a game of pool.

I'd invite you there - but its full of decent people - not those like you - who would rather misrepresent and lie to start some kind of homophobic fight.

As Dan-Cat points out - both you and Rich are attempting a gross distortion.

Shame on you!

At the moment you seem to be slandering me with completely false allegations of homophobic attacks.

Which is a long long way from the truth. Quite simply - you have gone too far and should apologise - but I doubt very much you will do that with any sincerity - cos you obviously like the lies and the effect they can have. THis is a hatchet job.


As for Rich - well he's the turd on the sole of every thread isn't he, and on this one you are right down there with him

 

[Adam Caramon]

The bottom line is this.

I don't agree that's the bottom line. I see how you're getting that conclusion, because that's how you're viewing what transpired, but I don't see it the same way.

Chergh asserts that being offensive is ok. He has admitted that he is being deliberately so. His reasons he has admitted as a selfish cathartic process.

I can't speak for him, but I don't think he was trying to assert that he thinks everyone should be offensive in their discussions. From what I can gather, he's stating an assertion that he knows some will find offensive, and he is doing so to try to prove a point. I'm not seeing where that crossed into the realm of "being offensive (in general) is ok".

If I say "The entire concept of God is silly, I can't believe religious people are allowed to vote", I'm stating an opinion.

A person could reply in many ways. They could point out other people who get a vote that maybe shouldn't. They could say that religious people probably think I shouldn't get a vote either. They could point how I was being completely arrogant. Many, many ways.

But if they replied, "Yeah, well you're a queer."

That's taking things to a totally different level. They aren't debating me, they are simply insulting me, not my thoughts or beliefs.

This is really what you seem to be missing, dan-cat. You're comparing apples to oranges. And I hate to bring it up again because Paul already apologized for it, which to me was a commendable thing on his part.

It is chergh's assertion that is under attack here. After all the heat over homophobia, do you think that being offensive is ok?

Once again I disagree that was his assertion, but being offensive is very subjective. What one person finds offensive, another will not. In general, being offensive about concepts, theories, ideas, etc. I think is ok. Being offensive about individuals or groups of people is not.