Are there vile homophobic views on this forum

[Hope]

Really, you cannot remember the thing you were banned for?

Well, since all I received was a PM telling me that my suspension had been related to a post that was apparently aimed at a certain poster but which - as far as I was aware - was a generalised statement about homosexual relationships, then, yes I found it odd that I was suspended.

[Shaker]

Yes, no doubt you actually believe that.

[Nearly Sane]

And you have the evidence that anyone here made this comment, or are you dealing in hearsay?

Since Shaker saw the post it isn't hearsay - I suggest that in addition to stopping lying about it, you should also stop using terms you don't understand.

[Shaker]

Since Shaker saw the post it isn't hearsay - I suggest that in addition to stopping lying about it, you should also stop using terms you don't understand.

No NS - without the post being reinstated he can continue to call it hearsay because there's no remaining evidence that it was ever here.

Alas

[Nearly Sane]

Well, since all I received was a PM telling me that my suspension had been related to a post that was apparently aimed at a certain poster but which - as far as I was aware - was a generalised statement about homosexual relationships, then, yes I found it odd that I was suspended.

  Yu replied to treant and used the term 'you' in regards to seeking treatment -stop lying

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Rarely, if ever, have I seen something as bizarre as this idea that because someone is just expressing the beliefs of a god they follow, and believe is an omni god, then that makes saying that trentvoyager needs to be treated by a doctor because he's homosexual Ok, because it's not their opinion, it's what they think their god thinks.

My view is that making it personal about TV is wrong but if someone said Muslims are abnormal and need to be treated by a doctor....sorry but I'm just finding it difficult to get worked up about it.

[Nearly Sane]

No NS - without the post being reinstated he can continue to call it hearsay because there's no remaining evidence that it was ever here.

Alas

Nope, hearsay is about stuff you don't have direct knowledge of. That you saw the post gives you direct knowledge ergo not hearsay

[Shaker]

Nope, hearsay is about stuff you don't have direct knowledge of. That you saw the post gives you direct knowledge ergo not hearsay

But without said post he can claim that I'm making it up, and I won't be in a position to demonstrate otherwise. In #42 I quoted the worst bit as best as I'm able from memory, but that's all I can do

[Nearly Sane]

But without said post he can claim that I'm making it up, and I won't be in a position to demonstrate otherwise. In #42 I quoted the worst bit as best as I'm able from memory, but that's all I can do

He can claim you are making it up, but not that it's hearsay. That you claim to have seen the post means that it isn't a hearsay claim.

[Aruntraveller]

My view is that making it personal about TV is wrong but if someone said Muslims are abnormal and need to be treated by a doctor....sorry but I'm just finding it difficult to get worked up about it.

I suspect it has moved beyond that Gabby and is more to do with the mendacity now being employed by Hope.

As I previously stated I thought the post should be allowed to remain and then it could be seen and debated if need be. But hey-ho.

Now talking of posts - I'm off to see a man about a fence.

[Nearly Sane]

My view is that making it personal about TV is wrong but if someone said Muslims are abnormal and need to be treated by a doctor....sorry but I'm just finding it difficult to get worked up about it.

  And I think that's clear in the rules but there are plenty of specific posts about people being delusional because of their religious views which have not been treated in the same way.

[Shaker]

I suspect it has moved beyond that Gabby and is more to do with the mendacity now being employed by Hope.

As I previously stated I thought the post should be allowed to remain and then it could be seen and debated if need be. But hey-ho.

Now - I'm off to see a man about a fence.

I would like to add that I think it regrettable in the extreme that so much of this discussion has to revolve around a specific poster and in my view a highly valued poster at that. Trent might well be wishing for all this to have blown over and blown away by now, and who would blame him.

However, this latter part of the discussion has only come about precisely because it was made personal and specific in the first place, which Hope is now trying to deny.

[Gordon]

Moderator:

Having just caught up with this thread let me clarify matters.

1. The post by Hope being referred to here, which contained the comment directed at Trent, was originally posted in the 'The N H S Chaplaincy again' started. I'll return to the content presently.

2. As part of our handling of this, having spoken to Trent, we left Hope's post in place.

3. However, the exchanges involving homosexuality continued and became a major derail (eventually there were more posts about homosexuality than about the Chaplaincy topic of the thread) and exchanges became increasingly rancorous, so we decided to split off all the posts about homosexuality so as to drag the thread back on topic: I made a Mod Post to this effect.

4. On looking at the split-off posts on homosexuality we could see no basis to restore these as a new thread given the content of many of the posts.

Turning to Hope's post - since we were originally prepared to leave this post visible, as noted above, we see no reason why the comment at issue can't be quoted here in order to clarify matter. So here it is;

Posted by Hope on:  April 01, 2016, 03:37:13 PM in the 'The N H S Chaplaincy again': the post in currently held on the Mod Board.

Trent, you have every right to express your own opinions; I also have that right.  You have the right to decide that you need or don't need a doctor; I have every right to suggest that perhaps you do.

 

[Shaker]

Thank you big G.

And you have the evidence that anyone here made this comment [i.e. "... someone who regards being gay as a disorder tells another poster, in the context of homosexuality not illness, that they should perhaps see a doctor"]

Not me personally, no.

Gordon did, though

Good enough, Hope?

*wanders off quietly humming 'Let the Heartaches Begin' ...*

[Nearly Sane]

The other issue with the difference between specific references to posters and, generalised attacks, against a group of people is that not all generalised attacks should be allowed either, imo. If someone wants to post that all Jews should be gassed, I'm not for allowing that.

[Aruntraveller]

The other issue with the difference between specific references to posters and, generalised attacks, against a group of people is that not all generalised attacks should be allowed either, imo. If someone wants to post that all Jews should be gassed, I'm not for allowing that.

A post I fully endorse and a point I have tried to make re gay people for many years.

It appears the wish to judge a group, of whatever make up, en masse, despite all our experiences as to where that can lead, is still well and truly alive and kicking.

[Nearly Sane]

A post I fully endorse and a point I have tried to make re gay people for many years.

It appears the wish to judge a group, of whatever make up, en masse, despite all our experiences as to where that can lead, is still well and truly alive and kicking.

As with all such things, it's impossible to write rules that are specific enough to cover all such cases, but, on a personal level being told that  parents indulged in child abuse because they brought kids up in a religion is deeply offensive, as well as ludicrously stupid.

[Hope]

Since Shaker saw the post it isn't hearsay - I suggest that in addition to stopping lying about it, you should also stop using terms you don't understand.

Well, if his 'from memory' record of the post is what he saw, I'd be interested to see the context.  IIRC, I had previously quoted the passage from the 3 Synoptic Gospels where Jesus says "“It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” (Matt: 9; Mark: 2; Luke 5).  If a poster decides to take this as a personal attack on themselves, that is their look-out, especially when the passage isn't related to sexuality as such.

[Nearly Sane]

There's a lot of talk on here about the divide between theists/non theists but I think the divide between those who believe in gay rights and those who don't and regard being gay as a disorder is far more significant.

[Hope]

Thank you big G.
Not me personally, no.

Gordon did, though

Good enough, Hope?

*wanders off quietly humming 'Let the Heartaches Begin' ...*

Did he have a single post or the context of a series of posts?

[Nearly Sane]

Well, if his 'from memory' record of the post is what he saw, I'd be interested to see the context.  IIRC, I had previously quoted the passage from the 3 Synoptic Gospels where Jesus says "“It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” (Matt: 9; Mark: 2; Luke 5).  If a poster decides to take this as a personal attack on themselves, that is their look-out, especially when the passage isn't related to sexuality as such.

Lying liar continues to lie

[Sassy]

I disagree, NS. I don't think you can call someone delusional simply for having faith but you can when they start arguing that God made the pretty flowers solely for people to look at.

Who actually did that?  Not an issue in this thread, is it? Poor excuse and not even a starter for 10.

And we get accused of all kinds of delusional beliefs and ideas around politics, football clubs, the meaning of life - it's a turn of phrase as much as anything else. And teaching children Christian doctrine is, well, indoctrination.

Teachings children that vegetables are good for you and burgers bad for you is indoctrination.
But at the end of the day don't we all choose for ourselves?  You know in paganism that what you believe has no basis in truth.
So why do you practice it? Why believe anything positive can come out of it?
Who really is in the land of make believe?

Bear in mind what Christians believe sin to be - something that separates us from all that is good,

Rubbish! Sin separates man from God. Where do you get such false beliefs from. Why do you even suggest such things.

and to many, something so evil it requires redemption through the Cross.

Did you forget that God is a God of truth?  How can you who believe and practice that which you know to be false make such comments. Sin is evil, but God created everything in the beginning to be Good.

31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.


So mans sin is his own each individual person. Christ died to save mankind from their sins.

And then add Hope's view - not unique to him - that all sins are equal in that. Sorry NS, there's no comparison.

Equal in that all sin leads to death but love greater in that it covers over many sins.

You need to find a way of putting love and truth into what you are trying to imply.

For God so loved the world, (not the flowers etc the human beings) that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believeth  on him should not perish but have eternal life.

You see sin leads to death. In denying Christ you deny many that might have come to believe through knowing you the knowledge of that truth. Does it bother you that by believing in a lie, you could be responsible for the spiritual death of others and their souls?  Everything has a consequence and truth is a must when we claim to believe something.

[Gordon]

The other issue with the difference between specific references to posters and, generalised attacks, against a group of people is that not all generalised attacks should be allowed either, imo. If someone wants to post that all Jews should be gassed, I'm not for allowing that.

Moderator:

I'd agree, and it would be useful if members reported such posts in future in order that they can be reviewed - I'd say this is essential for consistency reasons.

It may be that there is a need to review the relevant Rule (1.h) in order to clarify the issues here and where the 'line in the sand' should be drawn. 

[Aruntraveller]

You see sin leads to death.

No love, everything leads to death.

[Shaker]

Well, if his 'from memory' record of the post is what he saw

With the post in question now restored (thanks again Gordon) I was pleasantly surprised to see that my on-the-fly recollection of it in #42 was such a good match to the original.

I'd be interested to see the context.

Everybody watch out for the dodgems!

IIRC, I had previously quoted the passage from the 3 Synoptic Gospels where Jesus says "“It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” (Matt: 9; Mark: 2; Luke 5).

Trent is healthy as far as I'm aware and doesn't need a doctor.

If a poster decides to take this as a personal attack on themselves

I mean, fancy using their name and addressing them directly.

that is their look-out, especially when the passage isn't related to sexuality as such.

It was, as Gordon has already pointed out.