... and I don't think it is really a matter of whether or not you can voice your opinion. It is more a matter of HOW you voice it... But that is just my opinion.

yeah the thread they created this in response to (and in response ti me and ssorenn) was definitely the DIRECTED cussing at people.

It's a privately funded website, so the people paying for it and running it can make up whatever rules they want.

I help moderate at another computer game website where the owner only occasionally reads the topics, but every once in a while when he does he will lock topics. He sometimes says, "I'm not paying for this and if you want to discuss it go elsewhere."

Cussing doesn't show animus to anyone. That's a massive difference. No one has been murdered, lynched, humiliated, raped,had their vote stripped, brutalized, enslaved, gassed, interned, exterminated, falsely executed, fired, denied equality under the law, paid less, ignored, or had their families blown up because of cussing. The fact that you think this is even remotely comparable shows that you're clearly not someone subject to sexism, racism or homophobia. Amazing that anyone would even have to explain this

Persecuting people for religious beliefs; even ones which think homosexuality is a sin would be a form of racism. Its a complicated world to be devout.

I think there is a way to still respectfully think homosexuality is sinful. I dont personally think beomg gay is a sin - the bible is pretty vague on homosexuality.

Yes, religious bigotry also is included, although unlike the others religion is something you choose with tenets and beliefs you have to consciously adopt so coming in for criticism for those isn't bigotry because it isn't based on who you are but on the attitudes you adopt.

Right; there is definetely racism against mormons, amish, for example. Groups people tend to make snide remarks about.

Big difference between cussing and cussing at someone. You don't see that?

I have to disagree with bb (regrettably). The Bible is very clear in disapproving of homosexual PRACTICES. The same is true of bestiality, adultery and various other things - pride, greed, alcohol abuse, fraud etc.

However, there is nothing in the Bible that supports abuse of homosexuals, adulterers or anyone else.

The point is, we are all flawed and incomplete, whatever our particular vice. As a consequence, Christians are called to act respectfully and love unconditionally.

Nothing in the bible supports abuse of anyone? Stoning is pretty abusive.

I was speaking from a Christian (i.e. New Testament) perspective rather than Jewish (i.e. Old Testament). I think Christ's response to stoning was quite clear - let he who is without sin cast the first stone. To the victim, a woman caught in adultery, he showed compassion and grace.

Hope that clarifies for you. Apologies for my imprecise use of language.

I think a number of Christians, even while objecting to Deinodon's characterization, would take issue with your separation of the Bible into Christian and Jewish halves.

Unsurprisingly, I see NO hypocrisy in the rule changes. Clearly we can still discuss controversial issues, we just have to use CARE in HOW we express ourselves. How that is not self evident is incomprehensible to me. Maybe there's a bit of deliberate self chosen obtuseness going on.

Can we respectfully point out how utterly nonsensical it is to target a whole group of people based on the garbled ravings of a bunch of stone age shepherds from another continent?

Thanks Leth, although it should be said that the OT and NT are quite different in focus. In my experience, most Christian and Jewish theologians would agree with that assertion. When discussing any biblical issue you have to remember that the audience's for each were quite different.

And to take Ogion's point, yes you can, even if I don't share your opinion. Personally, my God is big enough to cope with an alternate opinion being expressed (and so am I) but others might well take offence.

Well, I suppose turnabout is fair play, since I take offense at the constant sense of entitlement to denigrate of my friends and family and to use threat of violence to force others to follow their warped beliefs. itd be great to see these folks adopt a little respectfulness once in a while

There is nothing in the bible that implies to me that god selects your sexual preferences on birth. in fact, gay people and homosexual urges exist as a creation of God if you beleive in God. lol

bb you should read Leviticus 19

* a bunch of stone age shepherds from another continent?
well that was an enlightened viewpoint that has me convinced of the superiority of Ogion's argument.
All arguments are silly to all but those who are stating their side.
When you don't understand or have no logic, you use the word stupid (or demean their origin or profession).

Ive read more in the bible denouncing adultery, divorce and murder than I have homosexuality. and King David comitted adultery and killed someone, he was still redeemable.

And of course, Mose to the point there is no reason to particularly follow the bible. After all, the Quran or the Haditha says we should put infidels who don't convert to the sword which means other people say that justifies killing the lot of us. After all, that bit of goatherd ravings is also said to be the word of God, so shouldn't we be commandeering the power of the state to kill all non Muslims or something?

When people start citing religious documents for their political propositions, I think that means they've automatically lost the argument.

King David repented, but he was still severely punished

Ogion, here is a raving carpenter's saying. should we disregard it too:

You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you,

I am praying for you Ogion.

"Ogion, here is a raving carpenter's saying. should we disregard it too"

You're implicitly arguing that Ogion shouldn't disregard the Bible wholesale because it contains some statements he finds reasonable. Therefore, your argument takes as a given that Ogion should use his reason, rather than the Bible, as a basis for determining what statements to accept or reject. This is exactly what Ogion was saying in the first place.

Letho, do you understand the term rhetorical?

Furthermore, just because you can read the bible doesn't mean you fully understand the bible anymore than a layman can fully understand what is written in law books

Tell me Letho, why are there two flood accounts in the bible? What is meant when the numbers 1000 or 44 are used?