Are there vile homophobic views on this forum

[Rhiannon]

Go on, then.

I have done. So have others on this thread.

[Hope]

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.

Gordon, when other posters seem determined to make a particular post take on a specific meaning and have a specific context, I believe that rules allow me to defend myself from what I would deem to be libellous accusations.  If they agree to stop such behaviour, I'll have no accusations to respond to.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

When I questioned his comment we all know it can only refer to the time he has been a member March 01, 2016,
11:10:19 AM This is the time and date he registered.

So in just over 6 weeks he thinks he can actually tell the members here that we have  'vile homophobic views' and yet he uses the one person Spud who explained everything and even tells our own LEONARD,

Dear oh dear what a muddle. I might have only been registered for 6 weeks but that does not mean that I have only been reading posts for 6 weeks.

In the first message that I used the term vile (remember, the one where you subsequently lied about me), I was referring to Hope's views about Homosexuals.

Vile is a subjective term, what one person considers vile is something someone else might consider reasonable. It is however, clear that I am not the only one who thinks that some (not all) of the views expressed are vile.

Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

[Shaker]

Gordon, when other posters seem determined to make a particular post take on a specific meaning and have a specific context, I believe that rules allow me to defend myself from what I would deem to be libellous accusations.  If they agree to stop such behaviour, I'll have no accusations to respond to.

What you might deem to be libellous - what specifically are you referring to here? - and what the law deems to be libellous are I suspect greatly at variance.

Nobody has libelled you. You have been asked, repeatedly and politely by multiple posters, to clarify a comment you have made and to explain what you meant by it. Whose fault is it if you refuse to do so?

[Hope]

I have done. So have others on this thread.

No, you and others have hinted at certain sinfuness but have failed to produce any evidence other than a single post that may or may not have the meaning you would like it to have.  I am quite happy to admit that I'm not perfect and have a variety of flaws (ie that I am a sinful human being) but then becoming a Christian isn't about becoming sinless instantly, its all about working, with Christ's help, towards sinlessness - a process that ends with physical death.

[Nearly Sane]

Gordon, when other posters seem determined to make a particular post take on a specific meaning and have a specific context, I believe that rules allow me to defend myself from what I would deem to be libellous accusations.  If they agree to stop such behaviour, I'll have no accusations to respond to.

You may deem it libel, but you would be wrong. Given your lack of understanding of the concept of hearsay, this isn't a very strong area for you.

[Shaker]

No, you and others have hinted at certain sinfuness but have failed to produce any evidence other than a single post that may or may not have the meaning you would like it to have.

Why don't you clarify it Hope?

Gordon has said that he has no plans at this point to produce the removed posts from the NHS chaplaincy thread that you say provide "context" for your remarks. I would take note of the "at this point," because Gordon for all we know may or may not change his mind in future, old stick.

[Hope]

Nobody has libelled you. You have been asked, repeatedly and politely by multiple posters, to clarify a comment you have made and to explain what you meant by it. Whose fault is it if you refuse to do so?

I have clarified it, I have explained it, I have gone to great lengths to put it into the context I believe it to have been posted in.  I don't call that refusing anything.

[Shaker]

I have clarified it, I have explained it, I have gone to great lengths to put it into the context I believe it to have been posted in.  I don't call that refusing anything.

No you haven't. Where is the clarification/explanation for your suggestion that perhaps Trent should see a doctor?

Why did you suggest that perhaps Trent should see a doctor, Hope? Happily I can now quote the relevant post again if need be, should your memory stand in need of refreshment.

[Rhiannon]

No, you and others have hinted at certain sinfuness but have failed to produce any evidence other than a single post that may or may not have the meaning you would like it to have.  I am quite happy to admit that I'm not perfect and have a variety of flaws (ie that I am a sinful human being) but then becoming a Christian isn't about becoming sinless instantly, its all about working, with Christ's help, towards sinlessness - a process that ends with physical death.

I'm not hinting at anything, Hope, I'm saying you are lying.

Still, glad to hear you're working on it. Perhaps you could start by honestly answering Shaker's question.

[Brownie]

Being as this is still being discussed, Hope, I really believe it is in your interests to be specific about what you meant.  It's quite easy really, did you suggest Hope see a doctor specifically about his homosexuality?  I get what you mean about us all needing ''a doctor'', because we are all in need of healing but it looks as though you meant he should see a medical doctor about his homosexuality. I don't think you really meant that, even though it was clumsily phrased, but it wouldn't hurt you to say so.  At the moment you are prevaricating.

[Shaker]

I would so love to post a .gif of the Countdown clock at this point

Although given who we're dealing with, this one would probably suit better: https://goo.gl/ccrBR0

[Hope]

No you haven't. Where is the clarification/explanation for your suggestion that perhaps Trent should see a doctor?

Posts #117, 131, 145, 156, and 160.

Some of you may have noticed a previous version of this post; I removed it as I felt my response answers this post from Shakes better than the other one.

[floo]

No, you and others have hinted at certain sinfuness but have failed to produce any evidence other than a single post that may or may not have the meaning you would like it to have.  I am quite happy to admit that I'm not perfect and have a variety of flaws (ie that I am a sinful human being) but then becoming a Christian isn't about becoming sinless instantly, its all about working, with Christ's help, towards sinlessness - a process that ends with physical death.

Well you have one hell of a long way to go, as your views on homosexuality are totally abhorrent and as bad as those of that very nasty anti-gay member who was banned some while back.

[Hope]

Being as this is still being discussed, Hope, I really believe it is in your interests to be specific about what you meant.  It's quite easy really, did you suggest Hope see a doctor specifically about his homosexuality?  I get what you mean about us all needing ''a doctor'', because we are all in need of healing but it looks as though you meant he should see a medical doctor about his homosexuality. I don't think you really meant that, even though it was clumsily phrased, but it wouldn't hurt you to say so.  At the moment you are prevaricating.

Brownie, I have already stated categorically that - since I don't subscribe to the concept of corrective therapy (in this context) - the interpretation that Shakes and others are determined to put on a single post taken out of context is wrong.  However, I do believe that, as Jesus suggests in Matthew, Mark and Luke's Gospels, Trent and others here are in need of a 'doctor'.  In fact, we are all in need of such a doctor.

[Shaker]

Posts #117, 131, 145, 156, and 160.

Some of you may have noticed a previous version of this post; I removed it as I felt my response answers this post from Shakes better than the other one.

Let's have a look:

#117: 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.

No explanation or clarification there of your suggestion that perhaps Trentvoyager needs to see a doctor.

#131: And the wider context, Shakes?  My reference to the Gospel passage about only those who know that they are ill need a doctor - so in no way related to sexuality.

That's the problem with cherry-picking posts or Bible verses in order to make an often prejudiced point.

No explanation or clarification there of your suggestion that perhaps Trentvoyager needs to see a doctor.

#145: Yes, it would.  If, as I believe I had, I had been talking about sin in general, and quoted the Gospel passage I've repeated in recent posts, then it would become clear that I wasn't referring to homosexual relationships at that point, but sins as whole.  Since I don't subscribe to the idea of corrective therapy, it would seem unlikely that I would be suggesting that anyone should undergo it.

No explanation or clarification there of your suggestion that perhaps Trentvoyager needs to see a doctor.

#156 [actually #155 - Shaker]: 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.

No explanation or clarification there of your suggestion that perhaps Trentvoyager needs to see a doctor.

#160: 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.

No explanation or clarification there of your suggestion that perhaps Trentvoyager needs to see a doctor.

[Hope]

Well you have one hell of a long way to go, as your views on homosexuality are totally abhorrent and as bad as those of that very nasty anti-gay member who was banned some while back.

Only if my views on homosexual relationships are at odds with God's and I have no reason to believe that they are.  Note, yet again, that the issue at hand isn't homosexuality.

[floo]

Brownie, I have already stated categorically that - since I don't subscribe to the concept of corrective therapy (in this context) - the interpretation that Shakes and others are determined to put on a single post taken out of context is wrong.  However, I do believe that, as Jesus suggests in Matthew, Mark and Luke's Gospels, Trent and others here are in need of a 'doctor'.  In fact, we are all in need of such a doctor.

What has that got to do with being gay?

[Rhiannon]

Hope, is it ok if it's Lying fur Jesus?

[Shaker]

Brownie, I have already stated categorically that - since I don't subscribe to the concept of corrective therapy (in this context) - the interpretation that Shakes and others are determined to put on a single post taken out of context is wrong.

So provide what you reckon is the correct one, then.   

However, I do believe that, as Jesus suggests in Matthew, Mark and Luke's Gospels, Trent and others here are in need of a 'doctor'.  In fact, we are all in need of such a doctor.

Why was that addressed specifically to Trent (a gay member of Religion & Ethics), identified and addressed by name, on a thread which had started about NHS chaplaincy but which by that time has become dominated by homosexuality?

Why didn't the scare quotes around the word doctor which appear in the quoted portion above appear in the post in which you suggested that perhaps Trent needs to see a doctor. Did you suggest that he needs to see a real, actual doctor - his GP, or some kind of specialist, for instance - or imaginary 'doctor' Jesus?

[Bubbles]

Some parts of 'old Christianity' have just tried to explain that black people are inferior, it find that vile, how about you?

Yes I find it vile, but I can discuss it, without appearing to go into meltdown.

[Rhiannon]

Only if my views on homosexual relationships are at odds with God's and I have no reason to believe that they are.  Note, yet again, that the issue at hand isn't homosexuality.

Claiming to know the mind of God, Hope - such impertinence.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes I find it vile, but I can discuss it, without appearing to go into meltdown.

Has anyone done so?

[Hope]

No explanation or clarification there of your suggestion that perhaps Trentvoyager needs to see a doctor.

Oddly enough, Shakes, those 5 references both explain why your interpretation (and I would suggest the mods' interpretation) is wrong, and explain that the context as I recall the immediate discussion, of which this particular post was one exchange, was not about sexuality of any sort, but was related to the passage that I've quoted from Matthew, mark and Luke's Gospels.

[Shaker]

Oddly enough, Shakes, those 5 references both explain why your interpretation (and I would suggest the mods' interpretation) is wrong, and explain that the context as I recall the immediate discussion, of which this particular post was one exchange, was not about sexuality of any sort, but was related to the passage that I've quoted from Matthew, mark and Luke's Gospels.

What does this waffle have to do with your suggestion that perhaps Trentvoyager needs to see a doctor, Hope? What kind of doctor did you have in mind when you made that suggestion? I will repeat the most directly relevant portion of my #194:

Why was that addressed specifically to Trent (a gay member of Religion & Ethics), identified and addressed by name, on a thread which had started about NHS chaplaincy but which by that time has become dominated by homosexuality?

Why didn't the scare quotes around the word doctor which appear in the quoted portion above [Hope: "I do believe that, as Jesus suggests in Matthew, Mark and Luke's Gospels, Trent and others here are in need of a 'doctor'.  In fact, we are all in need of such a doctor"] appear in the post in which you suggested that perhaps Trent needs to see a doctor. Did you suggest that he needs to see a real, actual doctor - his GP, or some kind of specialist, for instance - or imaginary 'doctor' Jesus?

I put it to you that when suggesting that someone see a doctor, practically every single person will automatically take that to mean an actual medical practitioner of some sort and not that they stand in need of 'doctor Jesus.'