@greg please clarify “if his words were really his”. Are you postulating that somehow the video and audio of his sermon may have been forged, changed, or manipulated in some way?
He errantly starts a claim of Christian persecution because the things he said about killing homosexuals is unchristian. Judgement of unrighteousness including Gods wrath is Gods category in this new covenant phase called Christianity. This guy is playing God and irony has it that unless he repents, He is the one who will be most severly judged by God for doing so.
If he was in the pulpit reading Scripture that says that homosexuality is a sin and an abomination in the eyes of God, then this is perfectly fine to do so and still be a sheriff. He is a sheriff who is a Christian in a country where the free excercise of religion is fully embraced.
Yes…
I disagree with this. No one in this country can get away with spouting hate speech under the guise of reading of scripture. Just because someone says this is Leviticus 20:23 from the KJV bible does not give any one legal protection from spouting hate speech and inciting violence. Reading a loud of scripture to incite violence, discrimination, intolerance, and injustice is hate speech and not covered under one’s right of freedom of speech.
The sermon was over an hour long. It was released by the church on its website. Please watch it. What do you think was edited, manipulated or changed?
Yeah just like Eddie. This is typical fundamentalist behavior. I have yet to see you accept any definition of “homophobia” which would include yourself.
Sorry it is, because of the meaning of the word notorious. Please look it up.
I am talking about the discussion between you and I.
Yes. I have said this more than once.
I cannot make any sense of this. Of course I don’t.
No. I have already explained this in detail. It is not two faced to say “I believe X applies to group A, but does not apply to group B”. I don’t maintain a silence towards practicing non-Christian homosexuals either; I am entirely prepared to tell them what I believe.
Do you believe his words should be protected by the First Amendment? Do you believe there should be anti-hate speech legislation?
All of which indicates that you would be called a homophobe yourself.
So, how do you see yourself as opposing homophobia?
How do you reconcile accepting yourself as a homophobe as well as opposing it?
How does that work practically?
Your position seems incoherent to me.
So we start with a bunch of people, some of who are homosexual. You come along with your view on its “moral nature”. When they object to your relegating them to an inferior moral position, they’re the ones who are “dividing people”. You have the right to hold an opinion on the matter, but they apparently don’t. You also seem to feel that this is characteristic of treating people with dignity.
2 Likes
I have already told you several times that I fully recognize some people would call me a homophobe.
I have explained this to you more than once.
Even basic science seems incoherent to you.
1 Like
I have to say that this discussion has degenerated into a farce. I give you New Atheist Christopher Hitchens, addressing an audience on the subject of free speech. Please listen to what he says from start to finish before offering comments:
2 Likes
And the AHA has a code of ethics which the doctor violated. Same thing
1 Like
Why should he be stripped of his position as pastor, if he was accurately reflecting what he understands as the views of his Church?
The state of Tennessee has no business determining whether his views are justified. They can determine if they make him unsuitable for employment as a law enforcement officer, of course.
I thought I’ve already answered these questions.
Yes and no, respectively.
You are correct that his claim is unjustified, but your reasoning is incorrect.
There are many Christians who agree with his view, even if they are in the minority. There is no reliable or rigorous way to say whether they are accurately representing the wishes of the Christian god, short of that god coming down to tell us himself.
However, the deputy shefiff is not the victim of Christian persecution, because anyone expressing the same views would suffer the same consequences regardless of their religious beliefs or lack thereof.
Sorry, you can’t rely on the state to whitewash away the aspects of your faith that you would rather did not exist.
Yes you did answer them previously, and those were the answers you gave. That’s why I don’t think I’ve misunderstood you. As you know, I hold the opposite view on both questions.
Your misunderstanding is in your thinking that my position entails that the deputy sheriff should not suffer professional repercussions for endorsing the killing of gays.
They do… they can give their opinion and I can tell them why I believe so… that’s what communication is about… and we can agree to disagree if thats what it comes to.
Nobody really loses anything.
Calling something immoral is not equal to rejecting the people who practise it. Think of it as having different philosophies on life…
Mature people don’t equate such differences of opinion to racism, murder etc.
And saying black people should be slaves is not equal to rejecting black people, or even to disliking them.
But you’d have to go thru some pretty convoluted “logic” to argue that it is not racism.
Isn’t it? Is calling homosexuality a sin the same as calling for all homosexuals to be enslaved and deprived of basic rights? It definitely is not…
By that logic, calling adultery a sin is equal to asking all adulterers to be enslaved.
It takes a certain level of indoctrination to think both are the same. And that’s the problem here. Replacing rational thinking with emotional false equivalencies.
I didn’t think you shouldn’t suffer professional repercussions for endorsing the killing of gays. That’s why I didn’t say that. But you believe he should have the right to say it. I think that’s completely wrong.