Are there vile homophobic views on this forum

[Nearly Sane]

I feel I need to apologise to both Hope and Trent for bringing this up when it had been dealt with.  I did think about it the other day, asked Hope and then thought better of it and deleted my post before it was seen.  I certainly didn't want to cause more trouble - and I'm not being disingenuous here.  Phew.   

It seems to me that we will never really know what was meant, certainly won't prove it one way or the other.

I think it's entirely cleAr what was meant, especially given that Hope thinks and has stated that he thinks homosexual activity is as wrong as murder. I find those who want to Olay down the fairly constant posting that homosexuals are ill, disordered, diseased, are contributing to those who post such things thinking it is ok to do so.

[Hope]

We have plentiful and crystal-clear evidence today alone that what you believe has next to no correspondence with la verite:

Brownie (April 14, 2016, 10:28:32pm): I'd like to ask you if you said Trentvoyager should see a doctor because of being gay or did you mean he should seek medical advice about something else?
Hope (April 14, 2016, 10:30:40pm): Not sure I said either, Brownie.  If anyone can find what they think is an example of this, I'd be happy to look at it.

Thatnks for that clarification, Shakes.  Do you have any contextual evidence that the post of mine that Trent was clearly responding to had anything to do with his being gay?  I accept that the wider context of the posts that have been cut was on homosexual relationships, but as we know from other threads, posters will often switch from specific to generalised references to 'sin' within that wider context.  Perhaps you can reproduce those 41.5 hours-worth of posts so as to show that I hadn't switched from specific to generalised.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Hope,

It is in your face mate, you suggested that Trent needs a Doctor, what for?

Gonnagle.

[Shaker]

Thatnks for that clarification, Shakes.  Do you have any contextual evidence that the post of mine that Trent was clearly responding to had anything to do with his being gay?  I accept that the wider context of the posts that have been cut was on homosexual relationships, but as we know from other threads, posters will often switch from specific to generalised references to 'sin' within that wider context.  Perhaps you can reproduce those 41.5 hours-worth of posts so as to show that I hadn't switched from specific to generalised.

I can't - that decision rests with The Management, as did the decision earlier to repost the words that you had tried to insinuate never existed.

[Shaker]

Dear Hope,

It is in your face mate, you suggested that Trent needs a Doctor, what for?

Gonnagle.

Yup, simple as that.

What for?

[Hope]

I think it's entirely cleAr what was meant, especially given that Hope thinks and has stated that he thinks homosexual activity is as wrong as murder. I find those who want to Olay down the fairly constant posting that homosexuals are ill, disordered, diseased, are contributing to those who post such things thinking it is ok to do so.

Good to see you playing your scratched record again, NS.  As I have pointed out before, God doesn't grade or tier sin.  In his eyes, 'sin' is 'sin', whatever it is and as the Bible points out, the wages of sin are death (and it is clear from the context of that passage that he is referring to spiritual death).  On the other hand, human societies are obliged to grade them since we have to punish them appropriately (hence to Jewish idea of 'a tooth for a tooth; an eye for an eye').

I think you will find that, if the missing 41.5 hours-worth of poists ever come to light again, it will become clear that I never suggested that homosexuals are 'ill, disordered, diseased' - I wonder whether Gordon will ever be able to resurrect them so that we can check.

[Shaker]

For what reason did you reserve the right to suggest that perhaps Trentvoyager ought to see a doctor, Hope?

Had you and Trent been discussing the state of Trent's health or was it for some other reason?

[Shaker]

I think you will find that, if the missing 41.5 hours-worth of poists ever come to light again, it will become clear that I never suggested that homosexuals are 'ill, disordered, diseased' - I wonder whether Gordon will ever be able to resurrect them so that we can check.

We don't need all 41.5 hours' worth; as Gordon stated this morning:

... the exchanges [on 'NHS chaplaincy thread - again'] involving homosexuality continued and became a major derail (eventually there were more posts about homosexuality than about the Chaplaincy topic of the thread)

[Rhiannon]

At this juncture I'd like to point out that 'thou shalt not bear false witness' is the ninth commandment. I think I have that right, and to add that sinners who do so are estranged from God. Just like murderers and paedophiles, according to some around here.

[Nearly Sane]

Good to see you playing your scratched record again, NS.  As I have pointed out before, God doesn't grade or tier sin.  In his eyes, 'sin' is 'sin', whatever it is and as the Bible points out, the wages of sin are death (and it is clear from the context of that passage that he is referring to spiritual death).  On the other hand, human societies are obliged to grade them since we have to punish them appropriately (hence to Jewish idea of 'a tooth for a tooth; an eye for an eye').

I think you will find that, if the missing 41.5 hours-worth of poists ever come to light again, it will become clear that I never suggested that homosexuals are 'ill, disordered, diseased' - I wonder whether Gordon will ever be able to resurrect them so that we can check.

pushing this onto God makes no difference unless in your opinion your god is wrong. Since it isn't and since you have openly posted it, you agree that homosexual activity is as wrong as murder. I will change that record when you realise that you are homophobic.


As to the 'ill,, disordered, diseased' part, we have already seen that you implied Trent was ill, and the other words have been used by Spud and Sriram, and I didn't say you had used them. So nice quote mine,  and in line with your general lying.

[Hope]

Dear Hope,

It is in your face mate, you suggested that Trent needs a Doctor, what for?

Gonnagle.

Gonners, on a number of threads - some about homosexual relationships, some about other actions and behaviours, I have referred to Jesus' statement that "Those who are well have no need of a doctor, but those who are sick.  I came not to call the righteous, but sinners." (Matt. 9; Mark 2; Luke 5)  Since I don't subscribe to the idea of corrective therapy, I am unlikely to refer to anyone who is gay needing a doctor for that reason.  If, as I believe this was, the post under discussion was in terms of the gospel passage above, then it clearly has no more specific relevance to being gay than it would to being fraudulent.

A third time? Really? OK: can you clarify that when you suggested that "perhaps" Trent needs a doctor, you meant that he needs a doctor for some medical issue (certainly unknown to me) or because he is gay?

Do you have any evidence that the post WAS specific to either Trent's sexuality or his need for a doctor in relation to a medical issue?  Simply tossing the one post back at me proves nothing.

[Rhiannon]

Hope, please stop. Just stop. You discredit this forum, your faith and yourself in persisting with your lies.

[Shaker]

Do you have any evidence that the post WAS specific to either Trent's sexuality or his need for a doctor in relation to a medical issue?

That's what I'm asking you to clarify. That's the very question I'm asking you. Can you clarify it and tell us why you suggested that perhaps Trentvoyager should see a doctor?

You [Trentvoyager] have the right to decide that you need or don't need a doctor; I have every right to suggest that perhaps you do.

You couldn't put it much more simply than Gonnagle did: you suggested that perhaps Trent should see a doctor - what for?

Since I don't subscribe to the idea of corrective therapy, I am unlikely to refer to anyone who is gay needing a doctor for that reason.

So if that wasn't the reason for suggesting that Trent see a doctor, what was the reason?

Simply tossing the one post back at me proves nothing.

I would tread lightly on the issue of proof if I were you; you never can tell when it's going to pop up from nowhere

[Gonnagle]

Dear Hope,

Fair enough old son but as sure as night turns into day ( if you are a Christian ) the apology to Trent will come.

Gonnagle.

[Gordon]

I wonder whether Gordon will ever be able to resurrect them so that we can check.

Moderator:

I could: they are all there, but I'm not inclined to at this point.

The section I quoted earlier was the complete stand-alone paragraph that was the basis of the subsequent suspension. Your comment, which I've quoted earlier, was made in relation to a comment by Trent that you had quoted immediately beforehand (that presumably you were responding to) - which was Trent's comment;

I just think he should keep his petty, baseless dislikes to himself.

.

Now, since the suspension we applied related to this post of yours specifically I can't see that resurrecting all the preceding posts we felt obliged to remove adds anything more of note given the frequent exchanges on this in various threads, including this one. 

That your comment was sufficient to merit a suspension would, I'd have thought, be an indication that now would be a good time to stop digging.

[Hope]

pushing this onto God makes no difference unless in your opinion your god is wrong. Since it isn't and since you have openly posted it, you agree that homosexual activity is as wrong as murder. I will change that record when you realise that you are homophobic.

I happen to believe what God teaches about homosexual relationships throughout the Bible - why would he teach it otherwise.  With my 'Christian' hat on, I don't believe that grading crimes is of any eternal value; 'sin' is 'sin', full stop.  As a human being, however, I understand the need for society to grade them so that they can be punished appropriately and for the protection of society  Your view that holding such diverse understandings is tantamount to insanity (no apologies for the pun) is to miss the point.  From my understanding of the Bible, homosexual relationships are no different to lying, fraud, greed, selfishness, adultery and a host of other sins, which obviously include actions such as murder and rape.  Your cherry-picking the reference to murder (or rape) is simply a way of trying (less than successfully) to make Biblical teaching (not me) out to be irrelevant.  You are entitled to believe this to be so, but it doesn't mean that you are necessarily correct.

As to the 'ill,, disordered, diseased' part, we have already seen that you implied Trent was ill, ...

In the same way that Jesus compared those who are ill to those who he was here to work with and save.  I appreciate that some here find the concept of metaphor, or parable, of comparison difficult to cope with, but it is a fairly common aspect of language and culture, and probably more so of the Jewish culture than of ours.

[Shaker]

That your comment was sufficient to merit a suspension would, I'd have thought, be an indication that now would be a good time to stop digging.

Sorted!

http://goo.gl/cQWvdf

[Nearly Sane]

I happen to believe what God teaches about homosexual relationships throughout the Bible - why would he teach it otherwise.  With my 'Christian' hat on, I don't believe that grading crimes is of any eternal value; 'sin' is 'sin', full stop.  As a human being, however, I understand the need for society to grade them so that they can be punished appropriately and for the protection of society  Your view that holding such diverse understandings is tantamount to insanity (no apologies for the pun) is to miss the point.  From my understanding of the Bible, homosexual relationships are no different to lying, fraud, greed, selfishness, adultery and a host of other sins, which obviously include actions such as murder and rape.  Your cherry-picking the reference to murder (or rape) is simply a way of trying (less than successfully) to make Biblical teaching (not me) out to be irrelevant.  You are entitled to believe this to be so, but it doesn't mean that you are necessarily correct.

In the same way that Jesus compared those who are ill to those who he was here to work with and save.  I appreciate that some here find the concept of metaphor, or parable, of comparison difficult to cope with, but it is a fairly common aspect of language and culture, and probably more so of the Jewish culture than of ours.

You believe the bible is correct. You believe that homosexuals activity is as wrong as murder. This isn't cherry picking unlike your dishonest quote mine.

[Hope]

Moderator:
Now, since the suspension we applied related to this post of yours specifically I can't see that resurrecting all the preceding posts we felt obliged to remove adds anything more of note given the frequent exchanges on this in various threads, including this one. 

That your comment was sufficient to merit a suspension would, I'd have thought, be an indication that now would be a good time to stop digging.

I'm not in a position to confirm or deny that the comment that you have quoted from Trent is his entire post, but it would useful to see what the 'petty, baseless dislikes' he refers to were - something that neither NS nor Shakes have been able to reference.  As I have said several times already on this thread, I don't subscribe to the idea of corrective therapy, so it is highly unlikely that my comment would have had anything to do with that or related issues.

[Rhiannon]

Hope, it would be unloving of me not to point out your sinfulness.

[Hope]

You believe the bible is correct. You believe that homosexuals activity is as wrong as murder. This isn't cherry picking unlike your dishonest quote mine.

It is also as wrong as lying, NS. 

[Hope]

Hope, it would be unloving of me not to point out your sinfulness.

Go on, then.

[Shaker]

I'm not in a position to confirm or deny that the comment that you have quoted from Trent is his entire post, but it would useful to see what the 'petty, baseless dislikes' he refers to were - something that neither NS nor Shakes have been able to reference.  As I have said several times already on this thread, I don't subscribe to the idea of corrective therapy, so it is highly unlikely that my comment would have had anything to do with that or related issues.

You keep asserting that that wasn't what your comment about Trent seeing a doctor was about; we would like to know what it was about.

You made the comment and wrote the post - presumably you must know?

[Nearly Sane]

I'm not in a position to confirm or deny that the comment that you have quoted from Trent is his entire post, but it would useful to see what the 'petty, baseless dislikes' he refers to were - something that neither NS nor Shakes have been able to reference.  As I have said several times already on this thread, I don't subscribe to the idea of corrective therapy, so it is highly unlikely that my comment would have had anything to do with that or related issues.

Given that Gordon who has access to the posts has confirmed what Shaker and I have been saying then your quibbling about this is yet more lying. Why is it that you feel that you have to continually lie?

[Nearly Sane]

It is also as wrong as lying, NS.

then I suggest you stop lying all the time.