PureX needs to apologize for his lie.

[Nineveh]

Like I said, look at other threads. Plus, you can't see my PMs

Ok, good for you. Allow brothers in Christ the same freedom to witness as they are called to do.

 

[intro2faith]

Nor is your obtuseness.



That's about the extent of your judging, too. You mention "Oh, yeah, and I think homosexuality is a sin", in passing. Which is fine, but you certainly don't apply the same methods to brothers in Christ.

By the way. There is nothing in the Bible against being "obtuse" as you put it. There is plenty about sharp tongues.

 

[intro2faith]

Nope, I took his word for it every time he said it. I'll leave the judging of intention up to you, even though you aren't very good at it.

Such edifying words!

 

[Nineveh]

By the way. There is nothing in the Bible against being "obtuse" as you put it. There is plenty about sharp tongues.

Nope, it's not a sin to be thick. Should I mark myself up as the next brother in Christ you choose to find fault with? I wonder if you consider calling someone sharp tongued as sharp tongued?

 

[Poly]

Here's another example of some good ol' "Christian love". I just got neg repped by a Christian person for a post I made on this thread. The comment was:

"you're a moron!"

How loving.

That was me. :up:

 

[PureX]

And your ignorance lead to your impying a falsehood. You can fix it rather simply you know. It's not a few people on here haven't explained his views to you well enough that you can't see the error you spoke.

Where exactly is this "falsehood" being implied?

Here is the post:

"Actually, if you encourage someone to commit a violent crime, and they do, you can be prosecuted for it."

This is true. It happened a few years ago right here in (or near) Chicago. This is a statement of fact and it implies nothing that I can see, except what it says.

"It's difficult to prove, though, that someone did the crime because of your encouragement, ..."

This is also a simple statement of fact. People do all sorts of crazy things for all sorts of crazy reasons. For someone to be held liable, it would have to be shown that the second person was being irresponsible in whatever it was that they did to inspire the first person to commit the crime. And to be deemed "irresponsible", I think it would have to be shown that there was a reasonable expectation of such a crime occurring as a result of whatever it was they did to "inspire" it. That would be very difficult to prove. (By the way, the "your" in this statement is used as a generic term. It means anyone.)

"... and rightly so."

This is obviously my own opinion, which can hardly be construed as a "falsehood", even if you didn't agree with it.

"Bob Enyart should be very careful in how he talks about killing homosexuals."

As I understand it, Bob Enyart does talk about killing homosexuals on the air. So it's not a falsehood for me to imply here that he does. He may use the word "execute" instead of "kill", but to execute does mean to kill. And because it is true that he does talk about such things on the air, it is also true that he should be careful (responsible) in how he does this. Because should someone ever commit such a crime, and claim that they did it "for God, because Bob said so" or something like that, the first thing the District Attorney will look at is whether or not Bob's public discussions about killing homosexuals could be considered to be willfully irresponsible or not. So the above statement is true on both counts. And I don't see how this is implying anything about Bob Enyart encouraging crimes. I have been around here long enough for you to know that if I intended to accuse Bob or anyone else of something, I would have. I'm not exactly known for mincing my words when it comes to expressing my objections to someone or something.

The only thing I can see wrong in this statement is that I should have written: "Bob Enyart, for example, should be very careful in how he talks about killing homosexuals." That way it would have been clear that I was using him as an example, and not implying any sort of actual guilt.

"If one of his devotees ever actually does so, he may well be charged with complicity to commit murder."

This is also true. In fact it has happened. (Not to Bob, of course, but to the guy in Illinois.) So I see no falsehood, here, nor do I see the implication of one.

So, not only is everything in my post true, but as you can see for yourself I have not accused Bob Enyart of anything (and I'm quite capable of it if it were my intent). I simply used him as an example of what could happen, and how it could happen. And that was the extent of my post.

I see no reason to apologize for the fact that someone didn't read it carefully, or understand it properly. That happens all the time around here. We'd all be apologizing ad nausium if we had to apologize every time someone else misunderstood our posts. None of us are perfect readers OR writers.

By the way. I have no problem apologizing when I'm wrong. I've done so lots of times here on TOL in the past. But I'm not going to be bullied into it by anyone.

 

[intro2faith]

Nope, it's not a sin to be thick. Should I mark myself up as the next brother in Christ you choose to find fault with? I wonder if you consider calling someone sharp tongued as sharp tongued?

Being sharp tongued is against the Bible. Does that matter to you?

 

[intro2faith]

Being sharp tongued is against the Bible. Does that matter to you?

Let me re-phrase that. Being sharp tongued is against what God says.

 

[intro2faith]

That was me. :up:

I'm glad you're proud of going against Gods Word...

 

[Poly]

As I understand it, Bob Enyart does talk about killing homosexuals on the air.

Oh? In your post before this one you said

I don't know what Bob Enyart advocates, exactly, because I'm not foolish enough to listen to him. And I was not making any statements about what Enyart advocates or does not advocate because I DON'T KNOW, and I don't care.

When somebody says "John talks about going hunting" this implies that John wants to go hunting. Not that John just sits around and talks about the subject of people who hunt animals.

So it's not a falsehood for me to imply here that he does. He may use the word "execute" instead of "kill", but to execute does mean to kill.

Yes, but the word execute is used in the context of the killing being carried out by the authorities. You could have easily said "Bob should be careful when talking about the execution of homosexuals." But when somebody says "Bob should be careful when talking about killing homosexuals" and turns right around and says "if one of his devotees actually does so" it implies that they were encouraged by him.

You want to now imply that maybe what you said was misconstrued but the normal interpretation with the words you chose is that Bob better be careful because if one of his devotees actually carries out what he encourages them to do, he could be held liable.

 

[Poly]

I'm glad you're proud of going against Gods Word...

You don't know the first thing about what it really means to go against God's word.

 

[intro2faith]

You don't know the first thing about what it really means to go against God's word.

Really? Ok. Calling someone a moron is not edifying. We are to speak edifying words.

 

[intro2faith]

Really? Ok. Calling someone a moron is not edifying. We are to speak edifying words.

Now I'll bet that you'll find an excuse...

 

[intro2faith]

Now I'll bet that you'll find an excuse...

Hmm...that looked really sarcastic. Sorry.

 

[Crow]

It mostly looked like you were arguing with yourself.

 

[intro2faith]

It mostly looked like you were arguing with yourself.

LOL yeah I bet it did. I kind of was I was being spiteful at first...oops.

 

[PureX]

You want to now imply that maybe what you said was misconstrued but the normal interpretation with the words you chose is that Bob better be careful because if one of his devotees actually carries out what he encourages them to do, he could be held liable.

Well, I didn't write that Bob was "encouraging" crime because I wasn't trying to imply it. I know the word, I know what it means, and I would have used it if that's what I meant to imply. But for some reason you are insisting on "seeing" it even though it's not there, and believing that I was implying it even though I am telling to directly that I wasn't.

Who knows better what I was thinking, you or me?

 

[Poly]

Well, I didn't write the word "encourage" because I wasn't trying implying it. I know the word, I know what it means, and I would have used it if that's what meant to imply. But for some reason you are insisting on "seeing" it even though it's not there, and believing that I was implying it even though I am telling to directly that I wasn't.

Who knows better what I was thinking, you or me?

Actually, if you encourage someone to commit a violent crime, and they do, you can be prosecuted for it.
Bob Enyart should be very careful in how he talks about killing homosexuals. If one of his devotees ever actually does so, he may well be charged with complicity to commit murder.

Your first sentence was to bring up how one can be prosecuted for encouraging a violent crime be committed. Then you bring up Bob as an example of what you're talking about.

This is tiresome. You definitly need to apologize but it's obvious you won't. Not that I really expected you to actually do so. Even if you said what you did out of ignorance due to seeing an opportunity to slander a person you don't like, not taking than making sure you have your facts straight, you should still be big enough to admit that you were wrong.

 

[Nineveh]

Where exactly is this "falsehood" being implied?

Post 75

 

[Nineveh]

Being sharp tongued is against the Bible. Does that matter to you?

My question is, were you being sharp tongued when you called me sharp tongued as I was when calling you obtuse?