Anti-Gay or Pro-Christian?

[Hupomone10]

2nd Post from “Kevin” regarding Fire Chief Cochran's firing:
"I own a business. I have to manage people every day whom I would not care to invite to my home. It is just common sense. I need my employees to be as happy as possible for the sake of productivity, but there is no way on God's little green earth that I can keep everyone happy(including myself). There are decisions that I have to make that I know will make everyone hate my guts(hopefully, in the short term). I cannot control what my employes think about me and they are free to go off premises and vociferously proclaim to the world what a big jerk I am. Heck, if they could get a book deal out of complaining about me would I fire them? Heck no! Free publicity like that would be golden. Shoot! People have a constitutionally enshrined right to their own opinions. I would die to protect that right. I still want equal rights, but if my equal rights comes at the expense of the end of free speech: the trade off isn't worth it.

I don't, however, think it will come to that. Idiotic administrators just need to be slapped down like they did in the aftermath of the color wars. The world will keep spinning people. This will eventually go down as an historical molehill compared to the mountain that was the color barrier."

 

[Bluelion]

It doesn't show that the source is wrong on this topic.
But it does show that fox is not reliable.



The first was when all the evidence presented pointed one way.
Now we have claims pointing both way. That calls the early evidemce and therefore conclusion into question; it doesn't offer enough clarity to make a conclusion the other way.


I try to avoid questions where the forum rules limit the discussion.

see but that is this fallacy Questionable Analogy. You are saying this man was wrong on a case there for all of fox is discredited. How many times has BBC been wrong? so they are not creditable by your logic, see how that flips and that is why it is fallacy.

I see so you can not respond to the question if gays are wrong and its a sin in a Christian way then?

Now i get why you want to condemn this man, thanks, wish I would have asked that a lot sooner. Your bias. No need to carry on.

 

[ebia]

see but that is this fallacy Questionable Analogy. You are saying this man was wrong on a case there for all of fox is discredited.

This is not one tiny mistake.
This is putting a man on air as an expert, when his expertise is pure bovine manure. Not a small slip but a whole interview of blatant wrongness. Clearly nobody at fox checked his credentials at all before putting him on air, or they didn't care. And his interviewer lets him get away with it. something like it wouldn't even run as an April the first piece in the UK or Australia - it would be regarded as too obviously wrong.

And while this example is so extreme you couldn't make it up if you tried, it's not the first time fox has been questioned about its reliability.

How many times has BBC been wrong? so they are not creditable by your logic, see how that flips and that is why it is fallacy.

I've never heard of a credibility failure that big on behalf of any significant news agency.

I see so you can not respond to the question if gays are wrong and its a sin in a Christian way then?

I didn't say I couldnt respond to the question.
I chose on principle to avoid questions on which the forum rules restrict the answers, whether or not my answer comes in the allowable or disallowable category.

 

[MoreCoffee]

...
I chose on principle to avoid questions on which the forum rules restrict the answers, whether or not my answer comes in the allowable or disallowable category.

I think that this whole thread and its poll topic is probably off topic for any denominational forum in CF.

 

[ebia]

I think that this whole thread and its poll topic is probably off topic for any denominational forum in CF.

Why?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Why?

The topic appears to be, indirectly, homosexuality and the thread has certainly engendered a number of comments on that topic. I do not recall the rules exactly but I think I remember something about homosexuality and abortion and a number of "hot button" topics being out of bounds because of the heat they generate. I may be wrong, but heat does seem to be generated by those topics without much light accompanying.

 

[ebia]

The topic appears to be, indirectly, homosexuality and the thread has certainly engendered a number of comments on that topic. I do not recall the rules exactly but I think I remember something about homosexuality and abortion and a number of "hot button" topics being out of bounds because of the heat they generate. I may be wrong, but heat does seem to be generated by those topics without much light accompanying.

The thread isn't really about homosexuality, though

 

[MoreCoffee]

The thread isn't really about homosexuality, though

It seems like it is ...

But this is not my home forum

 

[ebia]

It seems like it is ...

But this is not my home forum

Nor mine, of course.

I picked up the thread without noticing where it was.

The thread has stayed away from discussing homosexuality pretty well, and on the behaviour of the chief and his employers.

 

[Bluelion]

No I could not figure out why he refused any evidence that this man did nothing wrong. So i Question him on the issue and found he is bias I don't need to go further down the path I have my answer. But for the record the rules say you may not promote the gay lifestyle, we may and have had threads on it, what is off the plate till feb to my understand is women in ministry. So he could not say gays were sinning in line with God and that that life style was wrong also in line with what God tells us. These are not my Laws but God's.correction they are my Laws because they are God's.

but we can get back on topic, he is bias so he will not look at anything contrary he would rather attack American news agency, for the record probably the most creditable news source for longest time was 60 mins and they put some on on who was questionable, rolling stone covered a story that was completely false, everyone makes mistake it does not discredit an entire group of journalist because one made a mistake that is fallacy. Fallacy are not creditable arguments they have no facts just trick of words to get a person to agree with them.

So i gave my two cents God Bless that Man we need more like him. and i am all for gay rights, but I am against them when they trample the rights of others to have those rights.

 

[ebia]

So i Question him on the issue and found ...

... absolutely nothing because I haven't answered the question.

but we can get back on topic, he is bias so he will not look at anything contrary he would rather attack American news agency

You don't seem to get how wrong the piece is, nor how irresponsible Fox has been in running it.
Nor that fox has a low credibility generrally. This is just an extreme example.
Nor that credibility is dependent on past performance. A really major stuff up does undermine credibility. If someone has just lied to you about money you probably aren't going to trust them with your wallet an hour later.

 

[Bluelion]

... absolutely nothing because I haven't answered the question.


You don't seem to get how wrong the piece is, nor how irresponsible Fox has been in running it.
Nor that fox has a low credibility generrally. This is just an extreme example.

see but you said you could not respond with Christian forum rules, a biblical response would be accepted, but you said you could not do it. I figured you would not answer. I was not trying to bait you into getting in trouble I wanted to know what the issue was that you keep bashing this man for doing, NOTHING WRONG.

He broke no law. It is His right in this country to say what ever he pleases as long as it doesn't break the law. I.E if he said or implied on hurting gays, that would not be acceptable, but you know what the KKK has been preaching Hate for years and their right is protect, this fire chief actions were out of Love and based on God, why is his right not protected? WHy dooes he or me, or any Christian not have the right to worship our God publicly? Gays are allowed to have gay pride parades. They fought for the right to be openly gay does that now mean we can not worship our God publicly, because they are offended? I have gay friends and you know what they stay away from the subject, but if they ask me I would say I love you, but yes its a sin and yes it is wrong.

My wife came up with something that made me proud. She said why are people not getting fired for saying inappropriate content is wrong? Larry flin was shot for publishing his stuff, that was very wrong yes, but you know what people did not start firing Christians because some lost soul claim to be a Christian shot this guy and christian say inappropriate content is wrong. News flash what was done to gays over the years was not done by one child of God, Its simply not in our hearts.

So why do people not get fired for saying inappropriate content is wrong, it is the same sin. Most people on earth have seen some sort of inappropriate content, they don't have inappropriate content pride parades. No one wants to come out and say inappropriate content is ok, everyone knows it is wrong even the people who make it they don't care, and I knew those people who made it and the girls in the mags. They simple accept it is wrong. That shuts people up, there is no need for me to tell you it is wrong you already know, the problem comes when you try to pass it off as natural and ok among Christians, then its a problem.

Why is all these hypocrisies happening? Because the father of lies is ruler of this world.

 

[ebia]

see but you said you could not respond with Christian forum rules,

No I didnt. I said I chose not to respond because the forum rules restrict the permissible answers, and I don't like being told "you have to give answer a" whether or not that would be my answer.

So why do people not get fired for saying inappropriate content is wrong, it is the same sin.

Because nobody in the workplace is likely to feel denigrated or threatened by someone saying inappropriate content is wrong.

 

[Bluelion]

No I didnt. I said I chose not to respond because the forum rules restrict the permissible answers, and I don't like being told "you have to give answer a" whether or not that would be my answer.



Because nobody in the workplace is likely to feel denigrated or threatened by someone saying inappropriate content is wrong.

no why not? don't people do it in secret in the shadows, in shame, seems they feel pretty bad about it from all that. Fact is it did not come from me for I would not know right from wrong Had the Law of God not showed me, believe Paul said something similar.

Next thing you know they'll want us to burn all our bibles because it say gays are un natural perverse. and then we can have the approved qeen james bible. Sorry but America came to be to escape that kind of bull and enslavement. You know who printed the first Bible in this country? Congress.

 

[ebia]

no why not? don't people do it in secret in the shadows, in shame, seems they feel pretty bad about it from all that.

I can't see how this train of conversation can avoid running into the forum rules.

 

[Bluelion]

I can't see how this train of conversation can avoid running into the forum rules.

I truly don't see a problem, nothing that has not been said before.

I think it ligament and on topic If this man is not allowed to write a christian book with out persecution, because that is what it is, then how long until our Bibles are seen as offensives? Then we will be told we can not own them, this is nothing new but has been done through out history, in proverbs God says history always repeats. How long until they start burning Bibles and tell us we can only read approved qjb? How is what they are doing any different than what hitler did to the Jews? I am not calling gays hitlers but what I am saying is they are starting to persecute Christians and it has the potential to be that history repeated with Jews and Christians. Jews and Christian have been the most persecuted people throughout history. Where Christian history started, we can go back further to the Jews, to the gentiles that showed Jesus great faith, to The God fears Gentiles and back to gentile ruth who which is part of the Bloodline of Christ, we go back further to Abraham when God called him and he was a foreigner, we go back further to Abel who was murder by His brother. Jews were attack in Paris they also attack Christians because we long for our Jews brothers to come home. It coming quickly the age of the Jews and end of the age of gentiles. sorry that was for my Jewish brothers and sisters.

I have seen gays respond in nothing but pure hate when Christians preach on the street, but gays can march down the street in pride, Gays can write a book about Christians but Christians could not dare write a book about gays. ANd this book in question was not about gays. Seems like a double standard to me.

And if gays were attack the way the Jews were, they would also attack Christians because we love them and long for them to come home. Just because you tell your child they are wrong does not mean you don't Love them in fact the opposite is true. We are a faith of Love.