Calling People Names

[Philbert]

From the mod:

We have an unofficial policy here of not allowing people to call someone else anything that can be construed to be negative, even if you can prove it to be true. Unless 99%atheism specifically refers to himself as a bigot, you cannot. If you want to discuss this further, please start a thread in the Comments or Members Only subforum.

Does the prohibition on "calling someone else anything that can be construed to be negative" include declarations that homosexuals are sinners?

Thank you.

[olavisjo]

.

Does the prohibition on "calling someone else anything that can be construed to be negative" include declarations that homosexuals are sinners?

Thank you.

You can call me a sinner, and I would be willing to say that you can call all Christians a sinner as admitting that you are a sinner is one of the first requirements of becoming a Christian. (To avoid problems, it may be better to ask first, some Christians are sensitive, and the rules would forbid it unless they are willing to publicly admit that they are a sinner)

Telling a homosexual that he is a sinner would be against the rules, but telling a homosexual that homosexuality is a sin would not be against that rule as you are not attacking the person but the behavior.

But it is important for the Christian to show the utmost respect and love to all people. William Lane Craig said it well here...

Second, for those of us who are heterosexual, we need to remember that being homosexual is as such no sin. Most homosexuals did not choose such an orientation and would like to change it if they could. We need to accept and lovingly support brothers and sisters who are struggling with this problem. And in general, we need to extend God’s love to homosexual people. Vulgar words or jokes about homosexuals should never pass the lips of a Christian. If you find yourself feeling glad when some affliction befalls a homosexual person or you find feelings of hatred welling up in your heart toward homosexual people, then you need to reflect long and hard on the words of Jesus recorded in Matthew: “it will be more tolerable on the Day of Judgement for Sodom and Gomorrah than for you� (Mt. 10.15; 11.24).

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/a-christ ... z2a3bQ5k19

[Philbert]

First, please understand I'm interested in this question generally, and not just in the context of this forum's rules. I'm not here to argue about this forum's rules, as that is your decision.

You can call me a sinner, and I would be willing to say that you can call all Christians a sinner as admitting that you are a sinner is one of the first requirements of becoming a Christian.

Ok, good point, though a bit off topic.

Christians generally embrace the term sinner when applied to themselves, whereas I'm guessing most gay people do not embrace the term when applied to themselves.

Thus, calling a Christian a sinner will usually not be perceived as an insult, whereas calling a gay person a sinner probably will be so perceived.

A better comparison might be, if it is ok to call homosexuality in general (not a specific person) a sin, is it then ok to call those who hold this view in general (not a specific person) bigots?

Telling a homosexual that he is a sinner would be against the rules, but telling a homosexual that homosexuality is a sin would not be against that rule as you are not attacking the person but the behavior.

So I can tell any Christian who holds the view that homosexuality is a sin that holding such views is bigotry? I can't say "you are a bigot" but I can say "views such as you've expressed are bigotry"?

What are the chances of such a legalistic splitting of the hairs surviving a real world conversation?

I have a simpler clearer formula for you to consider. Homosexuals should perform their homosexual acts in private, not in public, and homophobes should do the same.

But it is important for the Christian to show the utmost respect and love to all people.

I propose that we don't show respect and love to anyone by proclaiming that their consensual adult sex life is a sin meriting eternal punishment, whether we put that personally or generally. Clever legalistic phrasing does little to soften the blow of such a rude statement, imho.

Most homosexuals did not choose such an orientation and would like to change it if they could.

To be clear, this is a quote from Craig, and not your own words. Thus I am directing the following to Craig and not you.

Statements like the above quote are complete rubbish. By that single statement the author is demonstrating he knows nothing about the subject, and is thus not worthy of being quoted.

We need to accept and lovingly support brothers and sisters who are struggling with this problem.

Homosexuality is not a problem anywhere but in the bigot's own mind. Just as with racism, it is the bigot that has the problem, not the black person etc.

And in general, we need to extend God’s love to homosexual people. Vulgar words or jokes about homosexuals should never pass the lips of a Christian.

God's love is not the Christian's to extend, it is God's to extend. God has already shown this love by creating many millions of gay people in every time and place in human history.

It is the Christian's role to butt out of everybody else's private personal family business, and focus instead on their own spiritual journey. As example, if a Christian sincerely feels homosexuality is a sin, the appropriate action for them to take is to not participate in homosexual acts.

As far as I know, no one on Earth would have a problem with such a personal private decision by the Christian.

I don't actually have a problem with those whose bigotry is confined to their own minds, their own homes, their own churches. It's not my desire to intrude in to these private spaces.

But I think it's important that if someone brings their bigotry out in to the public square they receive a reply that matches the tone of their own remarks. This teaches all of us that there is a price to be paid for undermining civilization.

If I insult you, I should not then expect to be immune from insult myself. If I don't wish to be insulted, I should refrain from insulting others.

Do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

[Lux]

In my opinion as a moderator but without having discussed this with my fellow moderators, if someone reported an instance where they or another forum user are personally being called a sinner, I'd consider that a violation of rule 1 of this forum...

1. Personal attacks of any sort are not allowed. Comments about any person that are negative, condescending, frivolous or indicate in any way a lack of respect are not allowed.

...and issue a comment or warning as appropriate. However, in my experience, almost no one seems to care about being called a sinner.

Personally, I would not report a user if they called me a sinner, I'd just point out that they are failing at making their case and getting off topic. The concept of sin is meaningless to me and what's more, I can accept (and not care) that by some people's religious beliefs I am by all means a sinner.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 3 by Philbert]

My issue is that there are many human conditions which i would find myself classed a bigot for. Our society ends up not helping people with conditions because those people refuse to be labelled. It's an absurdity I find distressing.
An example of what I mean - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/9526 ... cured.html

As a moderator I am against name calling because the evidence is nearly always in sufficient for the label and the name calling is nearly always an ad hominem.

[Philbert]

I would suggest that generally speaking, extreme cases excepted, there are no victims on internet forums.

A wonderful feature of forums is that we have complete control over what we experience. Shouldn't responsibility for what we experience come along with that control?

Most of the controversies arise in threads that members have willingly engaged in, with the full knowledge that others have opposing views, and are often passionate about their views. Usually it's two or more people who have made a deliberate choice to engage in a food fight.

In any case, let's imagine that I'm completely innocent of any offense, and you call me an ugly name anyway. What is the logic of me making your problem in to my problem?

Please recall, the "victim" is not required to have a bad experience. How they choose to experience what they've read is up to them. It's their brain, and their situation to manage.

There are two ways to go through life.

One way is to take responsibility for our own mind. Challenging, but doable.

The other way is to try to manage the behavior of millions of anonymous strangers on the Internet. An obvious impossibility.

Ironically, when mods attempt to protect us from ourselves, what they are really doing is encouraging the sad fantasy that we are victims. Which when you think about it, is actually pretty insulting...

Hoo boy, now I'm really getting mad! Those darn mods, why are they doing this to me! Boo hoo, boo hoo, waaaaaa!

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 6 by Philbert]


I think the sad reality is people think they are tougher than they are.

[Philbert]

I think the sad reality is people think they are tougher than they are.

For some this is true, for others the opposite is true.

In any case, whose responsibility is it to manage what's going on in my brain?

The mods?

Other posters?

Strangers on the Internuts?

[McCulloch]

Does the prohibition on "calling someone else anything that can be construed to be negative" include declarations that homosexuals are sinners?

In debate, it is always best to address the topic being debated rather than address the attributes of the debater. When those attributes are negative it is even more important. So it would be better to say that homosexuality is a sin than to say that homosexuals are sinners. Two ways to say the same thing, but one is put a bit more objectively which helps us to focus on the ideas rather than the people. In a similar vein, "The statement made by XXX about YYY is false" is better than "XXX is a liar when he talks about YYY" or worse just "XXX is a liar."

[Replying to post 2 by olavisjo]
The comments about appropriate Christian behavior, of course, only apply to the Christian debaters and do not necessarily reflect the rules of civil debate enforced here.

Christians generally embrace the term sinner when applied to themselves, whereas I'm guessing most gay people do not embrace the term when applied to themselves.

Thus, calling a Christian a sinner will usually not be perceived as an insult, whereas calling a gay person a sinner probably will be so perceived.

Ok, good point, though a bit off topic. I think that you would find, if you were to do a comprehensive study of sin in the Bible, that the term sinner should be perceived as an insult. Christian teaching is not so much to mitigate that insult but to humbly accept that insult as being true, then contritely approach a gracious God as an unworthy penitent.

So I can tell any Christian who holds the view that homosexuality is a sin that holding such views is bigotry? I can't say "you are a bigot" but I can say "views such as you've expressed are bigotry"?

Bigotry is a very strong emotional word and the accusation of bigotry should not be made lightly.

I propose that we don't show respect and love to anyone by proclaiming that their consensual adult sex life is a sin meriting eternal punishment, whether we put that personally or generally. Clever legalistic phrasing does little to soften the blow of such a rude statement, imho.

A lot depends on how such a statement is made. If a Christian were to claim that homosexuals merit eternal punishment along with everyone who has ever lied, stolen, over-eaten, gotten drunk or neglected the care of orphans and widows then it is less of a rude statement than, for example, "All Gays should feel the pain of God's eternal wrath" even though both statements are in agreement.

We need to accept and lovingly support brothers and sisters who are struggling with this problem.

Ahem. How condescending! Should we accept and lovingly support those with the problem of bigotry too?

[Philbert]

So it would be better to say that homosexuality is a sin than to say that homosexuals are sinners.

Ok, I agree, but really, aren't we getting in to clever little word games here?

If a gay person were reading such a post, they would perceive "homosexuality is a sin" and "homosexuals are sinners" as having the exact same meaning, wouldn't they?

I'm not arguing that anyone should be prevented from saying such things. Certainly not by law, and how a forum owner handles it is up to them.

My point is, if someone is going to insult millions of people they've never met, using an assertion that can not be proven, why is the door then not open to insult them in turn?

I'm arguing only for a single standard that applies equally to everyone.