What is offensive language?

[CRGreathouse]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

No. Threats of violence are considered an assault. It is a felony.

Assault is a misdemeanor, not a felony, in almost all cases.

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by CRGreathouse

Assault is a misdemeanor, not a felony, in almost all cases.

Thanks for the correction.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

You say this and acuse me of a diatribe? You are a hypocrite.

I see no hypocrisy.

Indulging in an act after claiming that another indulges in the same act does not in itself make one a hypocrite. Consider this example: I claim that you ate food yesterday. I ate food today. The act of eating does not make me hypocritical.

If, on the other hand, I said that by eating food you were committing a sin you may have a better chance of getting a charge of hypocrisy to stick. Even then, you may have difficulty. For instance, let me claim that you ate ham yesterday and that act is sinful. The fact that I ate ham today is not necessarily hypocritical as long as it is common knowledge that your religion forbids the eating of ham and that mine does not. Admittedly, I ought to have added something along the lines of "according to your religion" to my claim.

In the present instance, you are stated to have posted a diatribe. I see nothing in the statement to indicate that the respondent considers posting a diatribe to be an intrinsically bad action.

Consider this post to be a diatribe on the subject of over-hasty accusations of hypocrisy!

Paul

[rogue]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

You say this and acuse me of a diatribe? You are a hypocrite.

I wrote the sentence without intending to attack the religious right, but then did so (in my last paragraph) without removing the statement. Mine was shorter (based upon perspective), but you took the time to provide some evidence of your stance.

I think that it is clear from both of our posts that we are frustrated with religious conservatives who want to tell everyone else how to live their lives.

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by xilman

I see no hypocrisy.

Indulging in an act after claiming that another indulges in the same act does not in itself make one a hypocrite.

Correct. But indulging in an act after CRITICIZING someone else for doing so
does. The use of the word "diatribe" was an invective in this context.

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

No. Threats of violence are considered an assault. It is a felony.

Well you know have shown that you don't know the law.

Sex is dirty and any mention of it goes against their religion.

That is so false, that your ignorance and bigotry are showing through.

OTOH, It is OK to smite one's enemies. (Onward Christian Soldiers and all that crap).

You have obviously never read the lyrics to that. The advocacy is not to harm people, rather a war against sin. http://www.hymnsite.com/lyrics/umh575.sht
The true Christian is against violence, will not go to war, will turn the other cheek, etc.
You may want to go here for some education: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientious_objector
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_are_Ch...ainst_violence

You have heard the saying, An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But I tell you, you are not to resist an injury: whoever strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other to him as well; whoever wants to sue you for your shirt, let him have your coat as well; whoever forces you to go one mile, go two miles with him; give to the man who begs from you, and turn not away from him who wants to borrow. You have heard the saying, 'You must love your neighbour and hate your enemy.' But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven: he makes his sun rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust. (Mat 5:38-45)

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

Well you know have shown that you don't know the law.

That is so false, that your ignorance and bigotry are showing through.

I have seen it firsthand through many many years of experience.

My claims about the attitude of the religious right regarding sex and
violence are quite true, your claim to the contrary.

[CRGreathouse]

Actually, for those interested in history, "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" was a command to limit violence to that level, where it had previously been common to escalate conflicts based on such 'small' offenses as eye-gouging.

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

My claims about the attitude of the religious right regarding sex and violence are quite true, your claim to the contrary.

http://www.christianbook.com/Christi...1076883%7C1033
http://www.eclectichomeschool.org/ar...p?articleid=55
http://www.berean.com/categorylist.a...579&sbc=302586
http://www.publishamerica.net/product23018.html
http://www.faqs.org/periodicals/201010/2184066021.html

Or you claiming that part of Christianity won't talk about it? If so, why do you let one part dictate your view about the whole?

[xilman]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

The use of the word "diatribe" was an invective in this context.

Unless and until Rogue posts clarification, we'll have to agree to disagree in our interpretations of his post.

Paul

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

http://www.christianbook.com/Christi...1076883%7C1033
http://www.eclectichomeschool.org/ar...p?articleid=55
http://www.berean.com/categorylist.a...579&sbc=302586
http://www.publishamerica.net/product23018.html
http://www.faqs.org/periodicals/201010/2184066021.html

Or you claiming that part of Christianity won't talk about it? If so, why do you let one part dictate your view about the whole?

Such as your well known leaders/evangelists who call for the murder of
foreign leaders that they don't like? (Billy Graham)