Arrest me and throw away the key

[Ben Kenobi]

if I see a porn film with lesbians in it, clearly enjoying the show, would that make me part of gay act?
Not religious question, just an observation

Let me tell you a story...

I remember my second year in my dorm, where the boys on the floor had a penchant for blue movies. One of the girls who was there, we encouraged to watch the movie with us despite her desires. We told her that she would have nothing to lose by watching the movie.

Now, this girl is one of my close friends, who I know is a Catholic, and has helped me many times in the years past. I'm ashamed, and I apologised to her for my actions. I now understand why it was wrong for me to act in this way.

I wouldn't argue against porn just because it involves lesbians, but because it is very difficult for people to tear themselves away.

I know, I've been there.

[Ben Kenobi]

Hate speech laws will be used by those in power to outlaw speech against them and their favored constituents in the same way the Alien & Sedition Acts were used by John Adams and his buddies to go after their Jeffersonian opponents. They won't be applied consistently and that makes their constitutionality problematic, i.e., equal protection under the law will be a facade...

Very true. Which is why I have opposed a section of the law for hate crimes across the board. The laws exist such that those who beat other people, or who give threats to injure or assault, that they will be charged. So why do we need hate crimes legislation in the first place if the current laws are adequately defended?

[Ben Kenobi]

If you don't believe in killing gays for their perversion, Ben, you are disregarding God's law every bit as much as they.

Now, Che.

If I'm a pacifist, why would I want to go and kill people?

Aren't you against war as well? So why are you telling me to go and do the same?

Just because you believe your God commaned it, doesn't mean it's not hate speach. Would you defend Muslim's saying the Jews should be killed because God commands it?

No, because that is a threat to the life of the person, not because it is 'hate' speech.

Anyway, you should be happy to be a martyr and prove your faith.

If one of the Canucks wants to go and press charges, then let him go ahead.

I don't care.

[Space05us]

Or how about Sweden, where "civil unions" have been a reality for several years? Last year, the Swedes passed a sweeping "hate crimes" law forbidding any criticism of homosexuality. Last summer, Pastor Ake Green was arrested at a church in Kalmar, Sweden, and charged with "hate speech against homosexuals" for a sermon about homosexuality. According to the church newspaper Kyrkans Tidning, the prosecutor, Kjell Yngvesson, justified the arrest this way: "One may have whatever religion one wishes, but this is an attack on all fronts against homosexuals. Collecting Bible cites on this topic as he (Pastor Green) does makes this hate speech."

Wow, I didnt know Swedes were so up tight. They must have something stuck up thier ass.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I have admitted that we don't have a precise translation of what he said.

Which is not even what I was refering to. We still don't know what it is this pastor actually said. You just have a single statement attributed to the prosecutor, which doesn't even support your assumptions you are making based off of it.

Canada has a law worded the same as the law in Sweden that prevents hate speech against homosexuals. This is why I make the leap, and again, I am not the only one who is making this leap. If you wish to call the analysts in Canada ignorant of their own law, then please continue.

You don't even know what was considered "hate speech" by the Swedish court yet. Wait for that at least before starting your chicken little act!

If it turns out this guy was just quoting Bible passages and not instigating or condoning violence against homosexuals, then I'd support you. I'd speak against such rulings anywhere they occur.

There is no evidence one way or another yet whether that is the case or not. As such, I find your use of nebulous 'evidence' to further your bias against homosexuals appalling to say the least.

True, but if this thread is any indication, there are no laws in Canada that would protect a pastor making a similar statement, and the law here in Canada could very well be used in a similar manner.

We don't even know what the pastor's statement was! Yet you are already jumping to the conclusion that simply reciting a Bible passage will result in your imprisonment.

It is a leap... a very very big leap... based on heresay.

Precedent abroad increases the likelihood that this will be interpreted in a similar manner in Canada.

But it doesn't mean it will. Difference between "will" and "can", which you have had problems with repeatedly.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Collecting Bible cites on this topic as he (Pastor Green) does makes this hate speech.

I interpreted that statement to mean that collecting Bible cites like Ben just did will be considered hate speech in Sweden.

[Pekka]

Imran, no one knows how it goes in Sweden, so we should wait for the Swedes to arrive here. Assumptions now don't work. Go read some harry potter fairy tails about his magic wand

[Robert]

I'll cite some Bible verses as well

“Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone.”

“Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said to him, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us [our] sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved."

[b]Everything the bible says about homosexuals, every punishment the bible puts on homosexuals (and heterosexuals) is being putted on Jesus.

[Space05us]

Free speech
Hate speech

Lovers
Haters

Arresting someone because of what they said
Arresting someone because what they said was directly involved in someone else getting hurt/killed/turned orange


dog farts

[Ben Kenobi]

You just have a single statement attributed to the prosecutor, which doesn't even support your assumptions you are making based off of it.

Actually, I have two cited statements, one in Swedish and one from World Net Daily.

So which statement does not corroborate with my assessment? The first or the second?

Wait for that at least before starting your chicken little act!

Neglects the point. Assuming that my first point is correct, do you concede the second? That the laws in Sweden and in Canada, are identical?

I find your use of nebulous 'evidence'

Which would be considered more than sufficient given any other situation. Why are you holding me to a higher standard, Aeson?

Difference between "will" and "can", which you have had problems with repeatedly

Examine my statements, where I use the word will. I preclude all such statements with an íf statement.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Now, Che.

If I'm a pacifist, why would I want to go and kill people?

Because God commands it. Did you even read the passages you quoted?

And while you're at it, stop eating shrimp. God says you can't eat shrimp either.

[Ben Kenobi]

Did you even read the passages you quoted?

Why do you care about whether or not I follow God's commands?

You should be revelling in pulling me away from him.

Or you could be a God botherer in disguise.

stop eating shrimp

Crustaceans?

Ick. I wouldn't want to eat them anyways.

[Berzerker]

Ben -

Paul is of the OT?

All but 1 of your quotes were from the OT, and Paul is an OT "Christian".

One of the men has to be a top.

Lol, and one is on the bottom. So he's lying with a man as a woman lies with a man. I'd rather Mr Fun discuss this stuff.

Very good point, nested in the more frivolous. This is why I cited the passage in Romans, since it accounts for both ends.

Which raises the question as to why "God" forgot to mention women in the OT.

The blood of a murderer is on his own head, if one believes that murder ought to be subject to capital punishment.

Ya, I knew I was leaving myself open to that one But we're comparing consensual to non-consensual acts.

If one believes that homosexual acts are enough for capital punishment, then the blood is on their heads.

But you don't, so are you violating the Bible? And just believing someone's behavior warrants a death penalty and that spilling their blood is their fault would mean the attackers on 9/11 could say the blood of their victims was on the head of their victims.

Now, I know this seems hard to see in this day and age, but if you look at some of the other passages it becomes much more clear why.

I can imagine why, eating pork was condemned because of the way pigs scavenged food and the sickness from undercooked pork. Sexual promiscuity, either hetero or homo promotes disease. Then there's the whole spreading thy seed to fill the earth with people etc... If you belonged to a small tribe constantly getting over run by neighbors, more people is better. And then there's the psychological stigmas against homosexuality... Aside from the disease part which is more a result of promiscuity, I see no rationale for discouraging homosexuality (I don't think people can really choose one of the other unless they are bisexual). However, passing laws raises the question of equal application of the law. All sex outside of marriage would have to be discouraged via the law and homosexual marriage would have to be legal.

If God established his covenant among one tribe, he would fiercely guard that tribe from sin, in order to preserve his own word and testimony.

Why is homosexuality a sin?

The failure of this approach is why Christ had to come such that he would redeem all of us from our sins. Thus, the OT sacrificial system, including these sections of Leviticus, no longer apply in punishment, but the same attitude towards sin remains.

And yet Jesus is conspicuously silent on this "sin".

Read carefully. The passages say men, so the boys cannot be included. As for the men, what man worth his salt would pass up an opportunity for sex?

Old men before the invention of Viagra? So, how does this help God's case against the people of Sodom? God agreed to Abraham's terms - if 5 people were found innocent, the city would be spared. Lot and his family numbered at least 6. Then there are all the children, male and female, the elderly, and women. If we read the deal God made with Abraham and make the assumption homosexuality was the sin, we can only conclude Sodom was populated entirely with men who wanted to have sex with others they perceived to be men. But even that was not the sin that indicted them, it was only after they tried to break in that the angels acted. What would have happened if these men just walked away upon hearing Lot's words? The angels had not said a thing at that point...

True, it was the straw that broke the camels back. Sodom and Gomorrah were punished for their sins plural, of which one of these was sodomy.

But it wasn't sodomy, it was attempted rape. At what point in the story did the angels declare the people evil? Was it when they came to Lot's door and made their desire for sex known? No... It was only after they tried to break in and force themselves on the angels. So, this straw that broke the camel's back was the sin for which Sodom was destroyed - and this sin was attempted rape. That's how the story reads... There's no way around it...

Then why did Lot allow his daughter to be raped, if rape were the sin that shocked him?

They weren't raped, he offered his daughters to them and they rejected his offer. And it wasn't about Lot being shocked, the angels were there to confirm Sodom's sins. The sin here, aside from being attempted rape, was inhospitality. These angels were guests in the town and they weren't being treated like guests. That's why the Bedouin of the region still believe the destruction of Sodom was linked to hospitality protocol and why they are extremely hospitable to strangers lest they offend a passing angel.

Clearly, the homosexual act offended Lot, less than the rape of his own daughter.

That's his problem, if Sodom was really that corrupt he had some screws loose for living there in the first place.
But I ask you, which do you find more offensive? Some guys ask your male guest if they want to have sex or these guys raping your daughters (with your consent)?
No, this was about hospitality ettiquette and rape. And we don't know what offended Lot, he may have already known their intent was to rape his guests, not ask them out on a date.

Sodom had many sins, many of whom their women partook.

You're making an assumption. God heard accusations regarding Sodom and He sent his angels to investigate. The only confirmation of any sin in the story was when the angels saw a group of men rush the door to supposedly rape them. That is when the angels said a sin has been confirmed. They did not witness any crimes by women...

Why did God try to shuttle Lot and his family outside of the city, rather than trying to preserve them? Clearly God values the innocent, and tried to preserve them as best as he could.

That was after God agreed to spare the city if 5 innocent people were found. That means God would destroy the city if 4 innocent people were found. Furthermore, when God and Abraham were dealing, Abraham started with 50 innocent people and got God down to 5. So God was willing to slaughter more innocent people before Abraham started bargaining.

As for Lot and his family, his daughters had husbands who were skeptical of Lot's warning and they stayed and were killed. Why? Skepticim is a sin worthy of death? Lot's wife was killed while fleeing but for falling behind, i.e., she didn't get far enough away. Some theologians claim she looked back and was destroyed because looking back was a euphemism for her desiring the sinful ways of Sodom. That begs the question as to why the angels would want to save one of the sinners God was intent on killing...

However, God gives everyone a choice, and those who refused to leave the city were to suffer along with the wicked.

That isn't a choice, it's coercion. Do as I say or die. But Lot's husbands stayed behind because they didn't believe Lot, not God. How about all the innocent people who weren't warned? We have no evidence that this warning was given to anyone other than Lot.

Excellent question. Clearly, he felt the men would be just as satisfied with his daughter, as they would have been with each other.

That's a very interesting question, Berz.

Thanks But he must have felt these men were at a minimum bi-sexual. And he must have felt giving his daughters to them was less sinful than the alternative. So, let us use logic and consider the alternative that would be so vile as to warrant Sodom's destruction. Do you really believe this alternative was a group of men asking Lot's guests to have sex and walking away if the offer was rejected? No, the sin had to be worse than the rape of his daughters and that's a tall order... The rape of his guests would qualify... Both are cases of rape but the latter is worse, the rape of guests violates the rules of hospitality... And the story is clear, it was only after some of the men rushed the door, i.e., attempted rape... But this raises another question: why did the angels stand by as Lot offered his daughters to the crowd? Wasn't that enough for them? It would be for me...

The lusts were punishment in themselves.

Maybe it's a translation problem, but the text seems to say the people were punished for idolatry and the punishment was to be given over to lustful desires for which they were again punished. What does it mean for God to give you over to lust for idolatry?

Defilement does not require harming others. You can defile oneself without having anything to do with anyone else.

Well, true for the first part but not true for the second. Jesus said defilement comes from one's thoughts about others. You can think about committing murder and not commit the crime, but Jesus said just having the thought was immoral. He even seems to have equated murder and adultery with the thoughts that precede these acts. Just lusting for another woman was adultery according to him...

This presumes several things. First of all, if you are your own, then it is impossible to defile yourself. But if you are a creation of God, then it is possible to defile yourself. Your body then would be on loan from God, and not yours to do with as you please.

And Jesus said it is not what you put in your mouth that defiles you, but what comes from your mouth, this defiles you. What did he mean? He's talking about envy, deceit like bearing false witness, anger, etc... Thoughts that lead to hurting others...

This is why Christ used this passage that you quote, because it is not what goes into a man, but rather, what comes out of him, that defiles him. What comes out of a man shows you what is inside of him, unlike food, which is for nourishment. A man who is defiled, will produce evil things.

Correct, so is sex immoral? Depends... Rape is... molesting children is... adultery is albeit not as nearly serious as the first two... The problem I have is the Bible doesn't offer logical explanations for it's claims of immorality... And while we know some acts are inherently immoral, some aren't and when these get tossed in with those acts that are inherently immoral we're left asking why they are immoral. Homosexuality is in this category... So, tell us why it is immoral.

All have sinned and fallen short of the law.

Someone set the bar too high

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Actually, I have two cited statements, one in Swedish and one from World Net Daily.

So which statement does not corroborate with my assessment? The first or the second?

I don't read Swedish, so outside the little that has been translated for us I have no clue. The rest is nebulous to anyone who can't understand it until it is translated.

As far as I can tell, neither of the statements address the issue of what he actually said. The Swedish seems to imply that he was not just quoting scripture, but was using it to promote 'something' (however helpful that is, persecution?) against homosexuals.

The other is ambiguous in it's meaning.

Drawing a conclusion as to whether or not this ruling was well founded based on either, or both, is unsupportable.

Neglects the point. Assuming that my first point is correct, do you concede the second? That the laws in Sweden and in Canada, are identical?

I have no idea. Could you quote both laws you are refering to?

In any case, even a identical laws can be applied differently. The same law can even be cited in conflicting rulings withing the same country. Cultural, political, and personal (judges) influences need to be considered as well.

Which would be considered more than sufficient given any other situation. Why are you holding me to a higher standard, Aeson?

I use much the same arguments and same reasoning when applicable in any debate I have regardless of who it is.

I completely disagree that what you have offered supports your conclusions based on it. At best the evidence is nebulous, at worst, contradictory to what you claim.

Examine my statements, where I use the word will. I preclude all such statements with an íf statement.

In this case, you are assuming that the pastor wasn't condoning or promoting violence based on no evidence one way or another. You just assume that the ruling is unjust without any evidence.

You are making assertions that Canada will follow suit and start diminishing religious freedoms based off those prior assumptions. Given your statements in the past about how acceptance of homosexual marriage rights would lead to undermine freedom of religion, your linking to sources which make the same assumptions, and your inability to acknowlege anything which doesn't support those assumptions leads to the overall picture that you are only accepting of one possible outcome on this issue.

This is what I am referencing by "can" and "will". You've already made up your mind about what "will" happen. You don't have to say it explicitly, you make that clear enough with your arguments. You always use "if", but consistantly only consider one side of the "if", and base further "non-if" reasoning upon what you just stated is an "if", which "if" doesn't support.

You do this in relation to the subjects of homosexuality and whether or not God exists that I have noticed.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Why do you care about whether or not I follow God's commands?

You should be revelling in pulling me away from him.

I do not revel in removing people's faith. This is why I generally stay out of religious discussions. Faith is a deeply personal thing. It is a very comforting thing. Losing it is like losing your best friend. For what, just so you can have a better understanding of the universe? I remember what a scary, painful, lonely thing it was to abandone my faith. It's not something I'd ever ask of another human being, even if I think it's insane to believe in an invisible friend.

It still remains the case that if your argument against homosexuality is based on Biblical scripture, and that you won't obey that same scripture which commands you to kill homosexuals, you are something of a hypocrite.

Or you could be a God botherer in disguise.

A what?

Crustaceans?

Ick. I wouldn't want to eat them anyways.

Why? They're yummy. I love 'em. Shrimp, crab, lobster, langustinos, crayfish. Mmmmm good.