The new face of hate

[jefferiah]

In no way am I suggesting that the end justifies the means but that what we perceive has evil, or perceive as sin is nothing more than a personal judgment being erroneously applied to others. It has no place in society and was dispelled by Jesus as coming from God.

He said no such thing. He spoke of sin often. He gave a warning about teaching little ones to sin. He told the adulteress to sin no more. You are confusing this with his call not to pass judgement on others. Calling something a sin is not passing judgement on someone. When they asked Jesus about stoning the adulteress for her sin he never said "Sin does not exist." What he said was "Let him without sin cast the first stone." The Pharisees were right they she was a sinner. Being judgemental is not having a moral standard, it is when you say that you are better than someone else. Remember the parable of the tax collector and the Pharisee. The Pharisee thanked God that he was not like all the horrible people out there. But the tax collector asked God for mercy because he was a sinner. And it was the tax collector who was commended in the story. And he had to believe in sin in order to believe he was a sinner.

Now believing that homosexuality is a sin is not judgemental. I believe that adultery is a sin as well. I have committed it. So if a person who is also a sinner but not an adulterer were to say "adultery is a sin" he is not passing judgement on me. He is merely echoing the law, which he did not create. If he were to say that I am a horrible person while he is not, then he would be making a judgement about me in reference to himself. I said I believed homosexuality was a sin, but I never said that I thought of myself as morally better than any homosexual.

[Argus]

I don't believe in due process.

Let's deport right now!

The fact the courts are a near total mess, and that our so-called Justice system is in tatters is no reason to abandon the notion of due process entirely. The thing to do is deport those who cause the most trouble - the lawyers. Then we can fix everything else.

[Posit]

Various interpretations of Leviticus 20:13:

Conservative Christians generally interpret the passage as condemning all male homosexual activity. Some would extend it to lesbians as well. A comment on the capital punishment aspect of this passage by an Evangelical authority is: T.Crater: stated that the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) are a covenant between God and Israel, which also set up a civil state and decreed its laws. The Christian Scriptures (New Testament) is an agreement "between God and a multinational body called the church. It is not a state, so it doesn't engage in state functions like capital punishment." 2 Thus, the death penalty called for in Leviticus 20:13 is no longer binding for Christians.

Leviticus is Old Testament, something Jesus dispelled as fable.

Christians only came with the New Testament.

[Posit]

He said no such thing. He spoke of sin often. He gave a warning about teaching little ones to sin. He told the adulteress to sin no more. You are confusing this with his call not to pass judgement on others. Calling something a sin is not passing judgement on someone. When they asked Jesus about stoning the adulteress for her sin he never said "Sin does not exist." What he said was "Let him without sin cast the first stone." The Pharisees were right they she was a sinner. Being judgemental is not having a moral standard, it is when you say that you are better than someone else. Remember the parable of the tax collector and the Pharisee. The Pharisee thanked God that he was not like all the horrible people out there. But the tax collector asked God for mercy because he was a sinner. And it was the tax collector who was commended in the story. And he had to believe in sin in order to believe he was a sinner.

Now believing that homosexuality is a sin is not judgemental. I believe that adultery is a sin as well. I have committed it. So if a person who is also a sinner but not an adulterer were to say "adultery is a sin" he is not passing judgement on me. He is merely echoing the law, which he did not create. If he were to say that I am a horrible person while he is not, then he would be making a judgement about me in reference to himself. I said I believed homosexuality was a sin, but I never said that I thought of myself as morally better than any homosexual.

Jesus recognized that people BELIEVED in sin, a carry-over from the Old Testament teachers. What He did was forgave everyone's sin - something considered a blaspheme against the Church of the day and way more than a sin. And He taught that if you think you have done something wrong, to get over and stop doing it ("sin no more")

"You believe......" Absolutely that is judgmental - that's all you have to go on.

In Hebrew the actual interpretation of the 10 Commandments really means the 10 Commitments. If you were spiritually connected enough you might be able to see the error in your ways.

[jefferiah]

Jesus recognized that people BELIEVED in sin, a carry-over from the Old Testament teachers.

Citation please?

Forgiveness of sin would have been blasphemy because of the fact that it equated him with God.

Edited September 30, 2007 by jefferiah

[jefferiah]

And He taught that if you think you have done something wrong, to get over and stop doing it ("sin no more")

When he told the Adulteress to sin no more, he did not ask her first if she considered adultery to be a sin. And he firmly stated that he never came to change the law.

Recognizing or believing that something is wrong does not mean that you believe that you are better than a person who does, or that you are in any way morally superior.

[Posit]

When he told the Adulteress to sin no more, he did not ask her first if she considered adultery to be a sin. And he firmly stated that he never came to change the law.

Recognizing or believing that something is wrong does not mean that you believe that you are better than a person who does, or that you are in any way morally superior.

Judging someone as a sinner, or not is a way to compare your morality to what you "believe" you see. In essence you are judging yourself

"Judge not lest ye be judged....."

[jefferiah]

Judging someone as a sinner, or not is a way to compare your morality to what you "believe" you see. In essence you are judging yourself

"Judge not lest ye be judged....."

I did not make the law that homosexuality is sin. I am just echoing it. I am not calling other people sinners. I am a sinner. Look, if someone were to say adultery is a sin they would not be passing judgement on me, they would be echoing a law they did not create. Perhaps they also committed adultery. If they were to say so and so is a sinner, but I am not a sinner, that is self-righteousness. But having a moral law is not self-righteousness. Self-righteousness is not a belief in the existence of sin and morality. Self-righteousness is a belief that you yourself are righteous while everyone else is a sinner. The laws God made are not my judgements. How can you not understand this?

Edited September 30, 2007 by jefferiah

[jefferiah]

A man has two sons. The father makes the rule in his house that stealing is wrong.

On Friday night the elder son steals a few dollars from his father's wallet.

On Saturday night younger son does the same.

Now both of them know stealing is wrong.

If you asked either of them if stealing is wrong would you expect them to say "No!"

You claim that if they said "Yes, stealing is a sin." That then they would both be passing judgement on each other. I contend that judgement means in reference to each other, and in reference to retribution as opposed to mercy.

On Saturday night after the younger son steals money, the elder says to himself "My brother is stealing. This is wrong. I am going to tell my father that he should punish my brother."

He does so and the father calls both sons into his study and speaks to the younger first..."Your brother tells me that you stole from me. You know this is not right. He wants me to make a judgement against you, but what he does not know is that I watched him steal money from me last night."

He turns to the older brother and says, "So therefore if I take action against your younger brother I must also take it agains you. Do you still want me to take action against your brother? Or how about I forgive you both?"

Then the younger brother perks up a little and says, "So this means as long as the two of us steal that it is ok for us to take your money from your wallet without your permission?."

What do you think the father will say? Do you expect he will say "No it is not wrong to steal from my wallet." Balderdash!!!

And even if he forgives his sons everytime they do it and foregoes enacting a judgement upon them, it still does not mean that he is saying stealing is not wrong. It means he is merciful.

Later the Father asks his sons "Do you understand now that is wrong to steal from me?"

If they say "yes" Posit does that mean they are judgemental?

Edited September 30, 2007 by jefferiah

[Visionseeker]

The terror of hate.

"On May 27, Chanthapanya, a Laotian-Canadian, emerged from the house he had moved into the day before to find racist notes attached to several cars in the laneway.

The tires of the cars had also been slashed.

Chanthapanya, who lives with his mother, sister and wife, said they were living in fear, not knowing who had committed the hateful act."

Now to those who argue against prohibiting hate speech, consider what those notes represent.

Anyone who uses speech to deliberately and maliciously denigrate a group is engaging in formulating terror in their victims via an implicit threat of violence.

Edited September 30, 2007 by Visionseeker

[Visionseeker]

It happened a few years ago.

Are you talking about Boissoin?

[bush_cheney2004]

Anyone who uses speech to denigrate a group is engaging in formulating terror in their victims via an implicit threat of violence.

Nonsense.....you would have to ban half of the stand-up comedy acts in North America, many blogs, and printed media. Terroristic threats have defined elements of the offense, not half-baked generalities.

How about....."Damn Americans, I hate those bastards".

[Visionseeker]

Nonsense.....you would have to ban half of the stand-up comedy acts in North America, many blogs, and printed media. Terroristic threats have defined elements of the offense, not half-baked generalities.

How about....."Damn Americans, I hate those bastards".

Your criticism is bang-on. I neglected to specify intent. I shall modify the statement as bolded below.

"Anyone who uses speech to deliberately and maliciously denigrate a group is engaging in formulating terror in their victims via an implicit threat of violence."

[Posit]

A man has two sons. The father makes the rule in his house that stealing is wrong.

On Friday night the elder son steals a few dollars from his father's wallet.

On Saturday night younger son does the same.

Now both of them know stealing is wrong.

If you asked either of them if stealing is wrong would you expect them to say "No!"

You claim that if they said "Yes, stealing is a sin." That then they would both be passing judgement on each other. I contend that judgement means in reference to each other, and in reference to retribution as opposed to mercy.

On Saturday night after the younger son steals money, the elder says to himself "My brother is stealing. This is wrong. I am going to tell my father that he should punish my brother."

He does so and the father calls both sons into his study and speaks to the younger first..."Your brother tells me that you stole from me. You know this is not right. He wants me to make a judgement against you, but what he does not know is that I watched him steal money from me last night."

He turns to the older brother and says, "So therefore if I take action against your younger brother I must also take it agains you. Do you still want me to take action against your brother? Or how about I forgive you both?"

Then the younger brother perks up a little and says, "So this means as long as the two of us steal that it is ok for us to take your money from your wallet without your permission?."

What do you think the father will say? Do you expect he will say "No it is not wrong to steal from my wallet." Balderdash!!!

And even if he forgives his sons everytime they do it and foregoes enacting a judgement upon them, it still does not mean that he is saying stealing is not wrong. It means he is merciful.

Later the Father asks his sons "Do you understand now that is wrong to steal from me?"

If they say "yes" Posit does that mean they are judgemental?

A poor starving man steals a loaf of bread from a rich baker who has a hundred loaves but refuses to share.

Who is the sinner?

Is it a sin to steal? Or should he that refuses to share what he has be also condemned as a sinner? They are the same and neither are sinners but partners in a dance - a lesson - where both receive something they are missing. You cannot have a crime if the baker freely gave of his loaves, nor would you have a sin if the poor man offered to work off the cost of one loaf. The only error would be in your judgment of either one. That isn't a sin but a mistake, that can be corrected.

However, if you want to consider yourself a sinner then you may not also be a non-sinner. You judgment then gets tainted with your own prejudices and you no longer - on any matter - consider yourself to be taking the higher moral ground.

Would you kill to protect a child, or a sibling, or a parent?

[jefferiah]

However, if you want to consider yourself a sinner then you may not also be a non-sinner. You judgment then gets tainted with your own prejudices and you no longer - on any matter - consider yourself to be taking the higher moral ground.

If as you suggest there are no morals, then there is no moral high ground.

[jefferiah]

However, if you want to consider yourself a sinner then you may not also be a non-sinner.

You got it!

[Posit]

If as you suggest there are no morals, then there is no moral high ground.

There ARE morals but they are not based on sin. And morals are personal guidelines that we are to use for ourselves. We have no business imposing them on others.

Matthew 7:1-5

Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

[jefferiah]

Are you talking about Boissoin?

No, but I gave you the Bible quotes you asked for somewhere in this thread. It may have been concerning Bill Whatcott quoting them in a newspaper article, or something. I know very little about Mr. Whatcott, except that he is a Catholic he claims to be an ex-gay prostitute, who now advocates ex-gay philosophy. Whatever he does (if he was gay himself, which he readily admits) I am sure he is not advocating violence. Whether you agree with him or not, I dont think he should have been forced to pay money to people who were offended by his writings. That is frivolous. And any how concerning these biblical passages a Saskatchewan court ruled that they are hate literature.

As for Boissoin, the case against him was not pursued by an offended homosexual but by a Uni professor. Homosexuals who made it a point to meet with Boissoin and speak with him have actually spoken in defense of his free speech rights.

Edited September 30, 2007 by jefferiah

[jefferiah]

There ARE morals but they are not based on sin. And morals are personal guidelines that we are to use for ourselves. We have no business imposing them on others.

Matthew 7:1-5

Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

You are twisting it, Posit. The fact that I believe that homosexuality is a sin (not just for me but for all) is not the same as imposing it on others. They do not have to agree with me. I am not seeking to making homosexuality subject to criminal punishment. I am just saying I believe it is wrong. If a homosexual hears these words he can either agree or disagree. My having an opinion does not impose anything upon him.

Don't you understand that judgement in your quote pertains not to the idea of something being a sin, but to retribution vs mercy. That is why it says "with what measure ye mete". When you mete out judgement on someone it means you punish them. Also with respect to the brother's eyes this would refer to me saying to a sinner "I can cure you of sin" while I am a sinner myself. Physician heal thyself right. It does not mean that there is no such thing as sin. Jesus used the word "sin" many times, and never once did he ever say that he was only using it because he understood that people were entrenched in the philosophy of it. This is your twist Posit.

Edited September 30, 2007 by jefferiah

[Posit]

You are twisting it, Posit. The fact that I believe that homosexuality is a sin (not just for me but for all) is not the same as imposing it on others. They do not have to agree with me. Don't you understand that judgement here pertains not to the idea of something being a sin, but to retribution. That is why it says "with what measure ye mete". When you mete out judgement on someone it means you punish them.

Wrong.

"For with what judgment ye judge..."

What basis you use to judge someone...

"....ye shall be judged...."

...you are being judged by your own judgment...

"...and with what measure ye mete....."

...and with the severity you condemn....

"....it shall be measured to you again."

You shall be condemned back by your own words.

The minute you condemn a Brother for his mistake you have condemn yourself as being unworthy of God's Love. Repentance is for you, not for those you judge and condemn.

You have absolutely no right to punish "anyone" since you, yourself have fallen short of morality, remember?

Edited September 30, 2007 by Posit

[jefferiah]

Wrong.

"For with what judgment ye judge..."

What basis you use to judge someone...

"....ye shall be judged...."

...you are being judged by your own judgment...

"...and with what measure ye mete....."

...and with the severity you condemn....

"....it shall be measured to you again."

You shall be condemned back by your own words.

The minute you condemn a Brother for his mistake you have condemn yourself as being unworthy of God's Love. Repentance is for you, not for those you judge and condemn.

You have absolutely no right to punish "anyone" since you, yourself have fallen short of morality, remember?

re read my posts...I said quite clearly that I am not punishing anyone.

[jefferiah]

You are twisting it, Posit. The fact that I believe that homosexuality is a sin (not just for me but for all) is not the same as imposing it on others. They do not have to agree with me. I am not seeking to making homosexuality subject to criminal punishment. I am just saying I believe it is wrong. If a homosexual hears these words he can either agree or disagree. My having an opinion does not impose anything upon him.

Don't you understand that judgement in your quote pertains not to the idea of something being a sin, but to retribution vs mercy. That is why it says "with what measure ye mete". When you mete out judgement on someone it means you punish them. Also with respect to the brother's eyes this would refer to me saying to a sinner "I can cure you of sin" while I am a sinner myself. Physician heal thyself right. It does not mean that there is no such thing as sin. Jesus used the word "sin" many times, and never once did he ever say that he was only using it because he understood that people were entrenched in the philosophy of it. This is your twist Posit.

I am replying to my own post so that I can explain it to you.

The point I was trying to make is that when you are told not to pass judgement on others, it does not mean you cannot hold a concept of morality. It does not mean you cannot believe that something is a sin. When Jesus referred to judgement in this instance, he was referring to punishment and retribution, or else he would not have used the words "with what measure ye mete".

Think about what I am saying Posit.

Believing that something is a sin, is not the same as doling out punishment for it.

You must have misunderstood what I was saying or else you would not have said this in your last post:

"You have absolutely no right to punish "anyone" since you, yourself have fallen short of morality, remember?"

I said the very same thing. More than once. But believing that something is sin is not punishing someone for it. Do you understand. And what I am saying is that when Jesus said do not judge others, this does not mean you cannot say something is a sin or is not. It means you have no right to pass judgement on them for sinning, because we are all sinners.

[Visionseeker]

Must be that small, insignificant number of immigrants in rural areas that is to blame.

Study: A comparison of urban and rural crime rates

"The overall crime rate in small urban areas was 43% higher than in large urban areas, defined as census metropolitan areas, and 58% higher than in rural areas. Rates of total violent crime, total property crime and break-ins were also highest in small urban areas."

Edited September 30, 2007 by Visionseeker

[kengs333]

Wrong.

"For with what judgment ye judge..."

What basis you use to judge someone...

"....ye shall be judged...."

...you are being judged by your own judgment...

"...and with what measure ye mete....."

...and with the severity you condemn....

"....it shall be measured to you again."

You shall be condemned back by your own words.

The minute you condemn a Brother for his mistake you have condemn yourself as being unworthy of God's Love. Repentance is for you, not for those you judge and condemn.

You have absolutely no right to punish "anyone" since you, yourself have fallen short of morality, remember?

I've seen this over and over and over. The first problem with this is the fact that you're probably non-Christian, so your references to the Bible not only are insulting, but it really has no merit. Why would a Christian accept the rantings of a non-believer, someone doesn't truly understand what's written in the Bible? Stating that homosexuality is a sin is not condemning anyone; ultimately, it's the person who is living in sin who is condemning themself.

[kengs333]

It is well known that many priests and ministers in our society have molested children, adulterated with people in the congregation, committed theft and some are alcoholics and drug addicts. Yet the Church (pick one denomination) having known about the problem cleric allowed the priests and ministers to continue to preach, and in some of the most heinous cases relocated them to other districts to continue. The Churhc hide the crimes and refused to involve the law to prosecute many of these people.

I think "many" kind of misrepresents things somewhat. Just because something is in the news seemingly all the time, doesn't mean that it is prevelent. In fact, the fact that something recieves widespread coverage means that it is relatively uncommon. And then there is media bias; mainstream media is essentially secular humanist, and just loves to focus on things that go wrong in organized Christianity. Also, broadcast news in Canada is largely under the control of one organization. Feel free to check on who makes up it's board.

I think there is a difference between denominations, so this is something that can't be generalized about, but ultimately, organized Christianity is something of a problem because it has created hierarchies where there shouldn't be, things that are not talked about in the NT. It's good that there are people who choose to devote themselves to studying and teaching Christianity, but it is no guarentee of salvation. True faith comes only from reading the Gospel, not rituals, ceremonies, observing holidays or going to church on Sunday.

If in fact these people are evil and have sinned, then what about all of the millions of people they ministered to? If the men were evil and if the men (and women in some cases) were sinners then could they still minister in a way consistent with the Bible? Or would they not be passing on evil in their messages since according to the Bible Satan works through deception and in mysterious ways?

If an evil and sinful person teaches that 2 + 2 = 4, is he misguiding anyone?

The problem lies in how the evil and sinful person uses the messages in the Bible. People like Jim Jones, for example.

The wost of evil in our most recent memory has been Hitler and his creation of the Holocaust. Yet in the 60 million he slaughtered with no mercy, there was lots of good that came of it. We now have vaccines and medical knowledge that advanced us as society and in the end has probably saved hundreds of millions more people around the world. We have jets and nuclear technologies that came out of that war. We have distribution networks and have allies with nations we would not ever have had we remained out of the war. In no way am I suggesting that the end justifies the means but that what we perceive has evil, or perceive as sin is nothing more than a personal judgment being erroneously applied to others. It has no place in society and was dispelled by Jesus as coming from God.

First of all, 60 million is an incorrect figure. All these things you mention were being developed prior to the war. It's a complicated argument, and one that I think would be wasted trying to elaborate. Essentially, as I see it, the physical world is corrupt and sinful. Good things born of evil are often no better than good things born of good. If evil creates a drug that allows people to live longer, but during that entire time they choose to continue to live in sin, is that a good thing? Evil creates nuclear power, that nuclear power is later used to create electricity so people can live comfortable, materialistic lives, grow fat and lazy and sit in front of a computer and defend sinners all day long on message boards, is that a good thing? And what about the potential problems that nuclear power can cause; is that a good thing? I don't know, you tell me. As far as I'm concerned, why things are is beyond me, and I have no choice but to accept that this is the way things are; I only have a choice in what I do about it, if I allow the world to suck me in, or rise above it and focus on what's truly important in life.