Why aren't we allowed to preach about homosexuality?
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God"....
then why are they against giving up their wealth? Why do religious people want to accumulate wealth when they may be denying themselves an opportunity to go to heaven? Because they all think that they are such good people that it won't be difficult for them to fit through the figurative hole in the needle?
Most everyone thinks they're poor.
So, there are no rich people.
Ummm ... no.
Everyone rich person I have ever known feels poor, or better stated, they don't feel rich.
They only have like 5-10 million in assets, which is small potatoes in America. So, they feel poor.
You have to realize that rich people generally do not associate with poor people. So, their context of wealth is based on that.
"Boston College’s Center on Wealth and Philanthropy among the über-rich found that the majority of those who have more than $25 million do not consider themselves financially secure".
https://www.learnvest.com/2011/05/why-t ... l-poor-133
Forget about the rich clods who think they're poor. There are plenty of actual poor people in America who don't have access to millions of dollars, and don't own homes.
That wasn't the question though.
The question was regarding why "rich" Christian people don't donate more.
The answer is ... they don't feel rich.
No, I think it's because they're stingy with their money.
John Steinbeck observed that if you ever needed help, go to the poor; they'll help you every time.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
And freedom of association.
Americans should continue to have the freedom to join the Nazi Party and wave swastika flags.
But I don't fault modern Germany for outlawing the Nazi party and its emblem.
Americans should have the freedom to preach against homosexuality. Not saying that that is as bad as promoting Nazism, but it is controversial. But though half population doesn't like gay bashing its still freedom of speech.
But if Canada slaps you on the wrist for preaching against homosexuality that's Canada's business. Its not like Canada's persecuting Christians, and feeding them to lions. Its not even McCarthyism (have you now, or have you ever preached against homosexuality?). That little bit of a curb on the freedom of speech by preachers in another country just doesn't get any dander up in me.
Sorry.
Section 318 prescribes imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years for anyone who advocates genocide. The Code defines genocide as the destruction of an "identifiable group." The Code defines an "identifiable group" as "any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation."
Section 319 prescribes penalties from a fine to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years for anyone who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace.
Under section 319, an accused is not guilty:
(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or
(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.
Section 320 allows a judge to confiscate publications which appear to be hate propaganda.
This link has more details on the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission v Whatcott ruling. The Court held that, although Bible passages, biblical beliefs and the principles derived from those beliefs can be legally and reasonably advanced in public discourse, extreme manifestations of the emotion described by the words "detestation" and "vilification" cannot be.
In a nut shell, in lay terms: you can preach all day against homosexuality as long as you don't advocate lynching homosexuals.
Doesn't sound all of that oppressive a law to me!
If that rather innocuous Canadian law is all that this thread is about then I think that we all can move on.
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,328
Location: Right over your left shoulder
And freedom of association.
Americans should continue to have the freedom to join the Nazi Party and wave swastika flags.
But I don't fault modern Germany for outlawing the Nazi party and its emblem.
Americans should have the freedom to preach against homosexuality. Not saying that that is as bad as promoting Nazism, but it is controversial. But though half population doesn't like gay bashing its still freedom of speech.
But if Canada slaps you on the wrist for preaching against homosexuality that's Canada's business. Its not like Canada's persecuting Christians, and feeding them to lions. Its not even McCarthyism (have you now, or have you ever preached against homosexuality?). That little bit of a curb on the freedom of speech by preachers in another country just doesn't get any dander up in me.
Sorry.
Section 318 prescribes imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years for anyone who advocates genocide. The Code defines genocide as the destruction of an "identifiable group." The Code defines an "identifiable group" as "any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation."
Section 319 prescribes penalties from a fine to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years for anyone who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace.
Under section 319, an accused is not guilty:
(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or
(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.
Section 320 allows a judge to confiscate publications which appear to be hate propaganda.
This link has more details on the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission v Whatcott ruling. The Court held that, although Bible passages, biblical beliefs and the principles derived from those beliefs can be legally and reasonably advanced in public discourse, extreme manifestations of the emotion described by the words "detestation" and "vilification" cannot be.
In a nut shell, in lay terms: you can preach all day against homosexuality as long as you don't advocate lynching homosexuals.
Doesn't sound all of that oppressive a law to me!
If that rather innocuous Canadian law is all that this thread is about then I think that we all can move on.
You mean it doesn't sound like a horrible restriction on free speech, to no longer be allowed to advocate for violence or talk about groups as though they were subhuman? Isn't that the free speech killing political correctness we're told so much about?
_________________
There's no such thing as a free market.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.
"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God"....
then why are they against giving up their wealth? Why do religious people want to accumulate wealth when they may be denying themselves an opportunity to go to heaven? Because they all think that they are such good people that it won't be difficult for them to fit through the figurative hole in the needle?
Most everyone thinks they're poor.
So, there are no rich people.
Ummm ... no.
Everyone rich person I have ever known feels poor, or better stated, they don't feel rich.
They only have like 5-10 million in assets, which is small potatoes in America. So, they feel poor.
You have to realize that rich people generally do not associate with poor people. So, their context of wealth is based on that.
"Boston College’s Center on Wealth and Philanthropy among the über-rich found that the majority of those who have more than $25 million do not consider themselves financially secure".
https://www.learnvest.com/2011/05/why-t ... l-poor-133
Forget about the rich clods who think they're poor. There are plenty of actual poor people in America who don't have access to millions of dollars, and don't own homes.
That wasn't the question though.
The question was regarding why "rich" Christian people don't donate more.
The answer is ... they don't feel rich.
No, I think it's because they're stingy with their money.
John Steinbeck observed that if you ever needed help, go to the poor; they'll help you every time.
So true.We did a food drive when I was in school and we went door to door collecting canned goods in various neighborhoods.The poorer neighborhoods gave out more food than the wealthy.
_________________
I am the dust that dances in the light. - Rumi
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God"....
then why are they against giving up their wealth? Why do religious people want to accumulate wealth when they may be denying themselves an opportunity to go to heaven? Because they all think that they are such good people that it won't be difficult for them to fit through the figurative hole in the needle?
Most everyone thinks they're poor.
So, there are no rich people.
Ummm ... no.
Everyone rich person I have ever known feels poor, or better stated, they don't feel rich.
They only have like 5-10 million in assets, which is small potatoes in America. So, they feel poor.
You have to realize that rich people generally do not associate with poor people. So, their context of wealth is based on that.
"Boston College’s Center on Wealth and Philanthropy among the über-rich found that the majority of those who have more than $25 million do not consider themselves financially secure".
https://www.learnvest.com/2011/05/why-t ... l-poor-133
Forget about the rich clods who think they're poor. There are plenty of actual poor people in America who don't have access to millions of dollars, and don't own homes.
That wasn't the question though.
The question was regarding why "rich" Christian people don't donate more.
The answer is ... they don't feel rich.
No, I think it's because they're stingy with their money.
John Steinbeck observed that if you ever needed help, go to the poor; they'll help you every time.
So true.We did a food drive when I was in school and we went door to door collecting canned goods in various neighborhoods.The poorer neighborhoods gave out more food than the wealthy.
Yep, Steinbeck was right.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
jrjones9933
Veteran
Joined: 13 May 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,144
Location: The end of the northwest passage
OP hasn't addressed the complete rebuttal in this thread, but has dropped a Lost Cause troll pellet in another thread. Seems plain and simple.
_________________
"I find that the best way [to increase self-confidence] is to lie to yourself about who you are, what you've done, and where you're going." - Richard Ayoade
...I've only read your post here ~ But what cases can you cite of people, anywhere, being imprisoned for pulpit preaching against homosexuality WITHOUT THERE BEING OTHER FACTORS than simply preaching in a church/similar situation?
Say , (arguably) violent harassment, threats, other. Preaching " normally " only, nothing else.
_________________
Renal kidney failure, congestive heart failure, COPD. Can't really get up from a floor position unhelped anymore:-(.
One of the walking wounded ~ SMASHED DOWN by life and age, now prevented from even expressing myself! SOB.
" Oh, no! First you have to PROVE you deserve to go away to college! " ~ My mother, 1978 (the heyday of Andy Gibb and Player). I would still like to go.
My life destroyed by Thorazine and Mellaril - and rape - and the Psychiatric/Industrial Complex. SOB:-(! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !!
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
He might be referring to the Ake Green case in Sweden a while back. Not sure where he got Canada and Australia.
I think clergy should be allowed to preach whatever they want about it, provided they're not advocating violence or government discrimination.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5ke_Green
_________________
Who’s better at math than a robot? They’re made of math!
Why don't these Christians know how to get a life?
There are places in the world where it really is illegal to be a Christian, or to preach (ex. North Korea, Saudi Arabia), and places where they have been known to have been massacred (ex. Indonesia, territory controlled by I.S.I.S.).
"...literally does not exist". Wow. Talk about being ignorant.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
Why don't these Christians know how to get a life?
There are places in the world where it really is illegal to be a Christian, or to preach (ex. North Korea, Saudi Arabia), and places where they have been known to have been massacred (ex. Indonesia, territory controlled by I.S.I.S.).
"...literally does not exist". Wow. Talk about being ignorant.
I think Darth was thinking about America where discrimination against Christians does not exist, despite what the religious right claims.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
And the few questions- only answer if you site specific book, line, etc.and which bible translation please.
WRT christianity....the discrepancies between the old testament and the new boggle my mind and defy logic for me. Turn the other cheek versus cutting off body parts? Why isn't anyone wanting to cut off body parts any more?
Because it's inhumane? Because something in the bible is inhumane? Why did Jesus disagree with the old testament, isn't the old testament supposed to his father's words?
WRT to Jesus, there s a reference I have heard preached that says, "the apostle Jesus loved" ..so how come he in particular loved one and how was that love different and where does Jesus say prophets or priests shouldn't marry?
And where is the original Bible? I guess it's written in Hebrew or greek? I'd like to see some very unbiased person translate that today. And when exactly was it written and gathered into a book? Hundreds of years after the action? That mightily affects the interpretation.
If Jesus/God is making a new or return trip, which religion is he gonna join? What is he going to think about how those religions that "love" him don't seem to love each other?
Its about a personal relationship with the living God. The Bible says "perfect love casts out fear". There goes your argument, there. Its not about religion, its about truth.
[quote="jrjones9933"]OP hasn't addressed the complete rebuttal in this thread, but has dropped a Lost Cause troll pellet in another thread. Seems plain and simple.[/quote
I cannot possibly respond to every single thread posted. If my response is lost, it is because I am busy. Legislation has been passed in Canada to ban "hate speech" from the pulpit. and it is being pushed in the United States.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2 ... lical.html
Why don't these Christians know how to get a life?
What? Christians are being slaughtered world wide. Yet, everyone talks about these poor Muslims and "islamaphobia".
Yikes, its as if liberals love Islam. If they only knew that Muslims will kill you for not being Muslims. Christians simply want to convert you. But it is unlikely they would harm you.
http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/01/12/s ... tyred-2016
