I don't give a fuck if it's wrong religiously. As to whether it's wrong biologically, that would take a lot longer to argue, and you wouldn't accept it anyway. I hope you never watch lesbian porn.
David Lynn Arrested
- Thread starter TeeJay
- Start date
And most muslims ignore that part. Like most christians ignore the parts of the bible that say you should be killed for wearing clothes of different fabrics, cutting your hair at the sides of your head, being disobedient to your parents, etc.
I've certainly heard of police appeals in the media for further evidence, although not for minor crimes like disturbances or public drunkenness. Hate speech, although much more serious, is also quite rare. But if you or I haven't heard about such evidence appeals that doesn't proves there haven't been any, asnd no proof at all that this guy was treated unusually severely.
I've certainly encountered the Eaton Centre preachers you mention. But i've never seen anyone disturbed bby their message. People treat it like sort of a Speakers' Corner and appreciate the spectacle the speakers and shouters came there to offer. If your guy had been speaking against homosexuality there, he'd likely have provoked no one, cops included. But he was in the heart of the Village, and just like an Evangelist preaching uninvited in a a mosque or synagogue, he disturbed people. Deliberately.
Why don't you quote these police threats you keep talking about? I will not see it as you do just because you tell me to, and the repetition only makes your case look more desperate.
You offered a rebuttal when you replied to my first post here., and I'm pointing out that you're failing to put it across. If your case depends on me wasting time watching a video, you're never going to make it by telling me to go search for it myself. Tell ya what, I found one, it didn't show what you said. Look it up yourself if you think it did.
But about one thing, you are sorta right. I'm more interested in what wise or foolish things people say about what happened, than I am about the happening itself. That is why I've only posted about such sayings, first responding to the OP, then answering your arguments when you answered me.
Your last paragraph is truly bizarre: If I give the benefit of the doubt to to residents disturbed by motorcycles revving it's Cyclephobia? Just as it would be Concertphobia if it was a rock concert in the park that kept them awake, or Constructionphobia if they were angry about daylong jackhammering?
The issue is making the disturbance, where people have a legitimate right to be left in peace. Phobia is "an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something". If you want to attach that to 'Christian' and accuse the Police of it, you'll need to show us it was Christians the Police were averse to, because they were Christian, not just because they were misbehaving in a public place.
And this is where your entire diatribe fails, and why I am done dealing with you.
He never spoke against homosexuality. At all. Full Stop.
You continue to assume he did, present it as factually true with absolutely no proof of such, and use it to validate your arguments.
You criticize me for failing to make my point by not bothering to offer evidentiary proof, yet your points, going right back to your original one, are being made the exact same way.
Where is your proof that he was speaking against homosexuality?
Seeing as how you are using that to justify his treatment by both the crowd, the police, and the charges laid.
You dismiss my points because they do not conform to your idea of how they should be presented, yet you do not hold yourself to the same standards.
Thus, using your logic, your points of argument should be equally dismissed.
First off, I defy anyone to find where in the New Testament, which serves as the official revision to the Bible that all denominations of Christianity are based upon, it states that anyone should kill another in the name of their God.
Secondly, let us re-frame this argument.
If the Vatican, the very seat of Catholic religious leadership that sets the example and tone for all Catholicism, was to actively preach and engage in the murder of Gays, Jews, and Apostates, would that not be the defining influence for all groups of Catholics the world over. And thus be considered a vile organization by the rest of the world?
Because Iran/Saudi Arabia are the seat of Islamic religious leadership, that sets the example and tone for all of the Islamic faith, and is the defining influence for groups of Muslims the world over.
Iran/Saudi Arabia actively preach and engage in the murder of Gays, Jews, and Apostates.
Why are you defending them when you would not defend the Catholic Religion if the Vatican engaged in the same activities?
I said IF your guy… , because I was offering a hypothetical. About preaching in an entirely different location, something you dragged into this discussion claiming it was relevant.
I assume nothing about what he said, other than it disturbed the ordinary people going about their ordinary business in the Village. I assume that, because he was arrested for causing a disturbance there. The evidentiary basis is the media reports, and I linked to them when I joined the thread in post #4.
You have yet to reference anything that supports your many detailed assertions of fact about the events. Except an anonymous video you say you can't find. When you do, and tell us where we can view it, we might have a discussion about stuff it shows, and whether you or I might find it inoffensive. Whatever it may show, facts as we have them say the people he was preaching to found his message disturbingly objectionable.
What the unknown message was, is beside the point: Which is that he was arrested for the disturbing effect his message produced on the very audience he deliberately sought out. Not getting through to his audience would only make him an incompetent preacher. But although clearly unwelcome, he persisted in spite of hostile rejection, to the point where police decided they must intervene to keep order and the public peace. That made him a guy facing a trial.
We pay police to do that when people don't understand the limits of acceptable behaviour in public places, and fail to control themselves accordingly. If your video shows police misbehaviour we can talk about that too.
Nice try.
The "If " was in reference to the location not what was being preached.
You were attempting to prove my argument about location was not relevant by offering a comparison between the treatment he would have received in one hypothetical location as apposed to the one he was actually in.
As evidenced by your statement;
Thus speaking the exact same content in both locations. Otherwise, how can you compare the treatment of a person hypothetically saying one thing in one location, to that person saying a completely different thing in another location.
For example, you can't really argue the relevance of location by comparing the hypothetical treatment a person might receive preaching antisemitism in Time Square, Vs the treatment they might receive preaching pro Israeli support in Tel Aviv.
I would expect there to be a marked difference in the treatment they receive in those examples. But is that a product of location or content?
As I trust you are smarter than to try to make an apples to oranges comparison in order to prove a point, it must mean you were indeed attempting to make an apples to apples comparison. Thus making the assumption that "speaking against homosexuality" was the constant in your hypothetical location comparison.
And considering that only one of the examples in the comparison is hypothetical, and the other one actually happened, it reasons that the assumption of "speaking against homosexuality" constant is being applied to a real event regardless of whether is was actually present or not.
So either way your diatribe still fails.
Either you were making an apples to apples comparison in order to disprove my argument, in which case you are making assumptions about an event with no proof that such assumption even happened.
Or
You are making an apples to oranges comparison in order to disprove my argument, in which case your argument was weak in the first place, and pushing forward with such obviously flawed logic was simply just to troll this argument out longer.
Which ever one you pick, it still demonstrates that you do not hold yourself to the same standards you hold others to when it comes to presenting a point.
Another characteristic of someone arguing simply to troll.
The "If " was in reference to the location not what was being preached.
The following statement showed that the speaking against homosexuality was the assumed activity in both hypothetical locations.
As it did not specify that he was saying anything any different in this location.
You were attempting to prove my argument about location was not relevant by offering a comparison between the treatment he would have received in one hypothetical location as apposed to the one he was actually in.
As evidenced by your statement;
For such a comparison to be valid for the purposes you intended, this would have to be an apples to apples comparison.
Thus speaking the exact same content in both locations. Otherwise, how can you compare the treatment of a person hypothetically saying one thing in one location, to that person saying a completely different thing in another location.
For example, you can't really argue the relevance of location by comparing the hypothetical treatment a person might receive preaching antisemitism in Time Square, Vs the treatment they might receive preaching pro Israeli support in Tel Aviv.
I would expect there to be a marked difference in the treatment they receive in those examples. But is that a product of location or content?
As I trust you are smarter than to try to make an apples to oranges comparison in order to prove a point, it must mean you were indeed attempting to make an apples to apples comparison. Thus making the assumption that "speaking against homosexuality" was the constant in your hypothetical location comparison.
And considering that only one of the examples in the comparison is hypothetical, and the other one actually happened, it reasons that the assumption of "speaking against homosexuality" constant is being applied to a real event regardless of whether is was actually present or not.
So either way your diatribe still fails.
Either you were making an apples to apples comparison in order to disprove my argument, in which case you are making assumptions about an event with no proof that such assumption even happened.
Or
You are making an apples to oranges comparison in order to disprove my argument, in which case your argument was weak in the first place, and pushing forward with such obviously flawed logic was simply just to troll this argument out longer.
Which ever one you pick, it still demonstrates that you do not hold yourself to the same standards you hold others to when it comes to presenting a point.
Another characteristic of someone arguing simply to troll.
As I said, in my very first sentence, which, for your own purposes, you quoted out of order farther down.
I'm happy you think you've demonstrated something with that great long screed, but I stopped reading when you opened by arguing about 'if'.
As I've repeatedly said, my small knowledge comes from news sources, and they say he was arrested in the village for disturbing the peace by trying to preach on the street with a bull-horn. Anyone can look them up, I've given a link
Yours comes from nowhere I know, nor anywhere you've actually stated. Nevertheless, without any evidence you've claimed the Toronto police were Christianophobe (your awful coinage, anti-Christian's always been good enough for me) and improperly threatening, hoping to charge him with Hate speech. claims you've never backed up.
We've been repeating those positions ever since; it's occasionally been enough fun to almost make up for the complete pointlessness
But this petulant stuff about 'if' and your Eaton Center analogy contributes nothing to the topic, and has no interest in itself. Certainly no interest for me.
Enjoy.
I'll summarize it for you.
Learn to express yourself in more precise English if you truly meant something different.
If this statement isn't clear enough for you, then read my previous post to learn why your phrasing shot you in the foot.
Otherwise, have a nice day.
What about this Baptist? https://thehill.com/homenews/state-...p6TqAh3HTyefcElyR8ePSEsEQYtX7lYB380ru21cVaN7Q
Yep. It happens.
Here's the difference though between Christianity and Islam when it comes to a yahoo like this.
The scriptures of the Christian religion do not at all back up this guys ramblings. In fact, they specifically say the opposite.
The scriptures of Islam do back up these kinds of ramblings. In fact they encourage it.
So any Christian who has strong faith, and reads the New Testament, will see that this guy is full of shit.
Any Muslim who has a strong faith and reads the Quran would be lead to believe that this guy is right.
One would think they would be easy to find and quote then, in these days of Wikipedia and the entire Bible and Quran on-line. But I couldn't find references you say the scriptures of Islam encourage. What are you relying on for that statement?
Wikipedia did list four New Testament bits that condemned gays, along with other sexual sinners, although there's understandable disagreement, because the original ancient Greek didn't have a word that precisely translates into today's 'homosexual'. Not to mention, different times, different cultures, different morals and standards, even different Christianity, back then, way over there.
The Quran is used as a catch all for the purposes of discussion. It is difficult for non Muslims to find such quotes because the Scriptures of the Islamic faith are spread between many sources.
The Quran, The Hadith, Sharia, etc.
Plus accurate English translations of such are difficult to find. The religion actively resists these scriptures being translated to any other language.
I am still sifting for quotes on punishment for Gays. However, I quickly came across quotes for the punishment of Apostates in the Hadith.
“Whoever changes his religion, execute him.” (Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 2794)
Further;
"The Prophet (Muhammad) said: “It is not permissible to shed the blood of a Muslim who bears witness that there is no god except Allaah and that I am His Messenger, except in one of three cases: a soul for a soul (i.e., in the case of murder); a married man who commits adultery; and one who leaves his religion and splits from the jamaa’ah (main group of Muslims).” (Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 6878; Muslim, 1676)
Finding the quotes for punishment of Gays will take longer as I believe it starts in the story of Lot if memory serves, and then spreads into Sharia.
As for the new testament, condemnation is not a recommendation for punishment. In fact the overarching teachings of the New Testament states that No one other than their God can judge man, which pretty much precludes punishment.
Which basically translates to, just because God has told you something is wrong, doesn't mean you can judge and punish another for doing so.
It also teaches that their God is forgiving.
This marks a fascinating tonal shift in the God depicted in the Old Testament, as apposed to the God depicted in the New Testament.
The Old Testament God was a vengeful God that used fear to ensure obedience.
The Stories of banishing Adam and Eve for disobeying him, and flooding the world and sparing only Noah to punish man kind.
This more foreboding God influenced many of the Old Testament scriptures as well. many being violent and cruel.
Not surprisingly, the Old Testament theology factors in greatly with the Islamic Faith, and serves as a base for which much of Islam is founded.
The New Testament is a fascinating theological occurrence, as it represents one of the few complete religious ret-cons, as it were, of any major world religion.
The Depiction of God is completely changed.
Instead of God being a vengeful, one that punishes mankind. God is now depicted as an all loving one that wants to save mankind.
Instead of demanding mankind to be faithful to him, he sacrifices his son to save mankind and convince them to be faithful to him.
He teaches his followers not to punish those that transgress him, but to love and accept those who transgress against him.
The entire concept of a one God, from his characterization, to his actions, to his teachings, does almost a complete 180, and moves from a decidedly aggressive religion, more befitting of the societal traits of ancient times, to an almost pacifistic religion, having more philosophically in common with Buddhist, and other contemporary eastern religions of the period. Understandable considering the regions increased exposure to other distant cultures brought about by the far reaching trade and transportation routes of the Roman Empire.
It was such an abrupt change from the Old Testament that it makes one wonder why New Christians at the time chose to keep the Old one at all. Although having a common base of theology to build upon, thus making it easier to convert the predominantly Jewish population at the time, most likely was a contributing factor. Just as it was for Muhammad in his choice to do the same.
Ah!
Found it.
The most prolific place for the punishment of Gays in the Islamic faith is in a Hadith collection.
For example;
"Narrated by Abdullah ibn Abbas: The Prophet (Mohammad) said: If you find anyone doing as Lot's people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done.
— Sunan Abu Dawood, 38:4447, Al-Tirmidhi, 15:1456, Ibn Maajah, 20:2561"
Now to know what that means you must first be familiar with the story of Lot. In short the story is about acts of homosexuality and other acts considered deviant by Allah.
Here is yet an even more blunt quote.
"Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas: If a man who is not married is seized committing sodomy he will be stoned to death.
— Sunan Abu Dawood, 38:4448"
These are not just moral judgments put on people Like in the New Testament. These are actual orders to the faithful.
And they're pretty specific too. Not much room for creative interpretation here.
I'm sure there are more, but I'm running out of time.
Hopefully these are quotes that will satisfy your desire for proof.
You already put a lot of work into this post, I hope your further effort pays off somewhat better. I certainly would have been easier to leave off after your first sentence or so, and counseled patience while you dug out what others have spenttheir lives finding.
If as you say the Hadith's and Sharia (not to mention the etc.) are to be considered as "the scriptures of Islam" shouldn't we be considering the Apocrypha and the Old Testament as Christian scriptures? All three of my Bibles have the earlier testament that recounts the Prophets who foretold the Messiah, and the laws He talked about. Catholic Bibles are often printed complete with both the Old and with the Apocrypha. And then there is the Book of Mormon, a scripture of an important and numerous sect of Christians. Not that we want to distinguish strains of Christianity here, but Islam likewise has had its share of schisms and rival scriptural authorities. The only fair comparison of Christian and Muslim scriptural precepts would be either equally braod, including all, or equally narrow restriceted just to the central text.
Surely if the history of religions has any one thing we should learn from our study, it is the gravely dangerous consequence of saying this and only this is the One True Word. Good luck, I doubt you'll find that certainty.
Again, noble effort. They may be orders to the faithful, but they are not the words of God or even of His Prophet, only second-hand versions from various respected followers, and first written 200yr after Mohammmad (because he forbade it). Disputed to this day by different Islamic sects. Stoning was not even mentioned in the actual Quran.
It's hardly a fair comparison to cast such a wide net in Islamic writings but restrict the examination of Christian ones to the New Testament and nothing but. The Torah is the legal counterpart the Old testament as Sharia law is to the Quran, and it also prescribes stoning for homosexual acts (and for quite a few others). Which is why St. Paul and St. Stephen were stoned for their preaching about their false god Jesus.
Whatever the texts, whatever the faith, the evils are accomplished by people who read them to find the authority for what they want to do, and have determined to do, texts or no.
