Censorship cedes the point.

[bhsmte]

No. Christianity never tried to censor anything. If some Christians did, that is not Biblical.

The reason is very simple: Do or say whatever you like. But be prepared to face the consequence.

Consequence of what????

I think you need to take another look at your bible.

 

[juvenissun]

Consequence of what????

I think you need to take another look at your bible.

For example, if you promote hate, then you should not be censored. But you will face the consequence. It could be anything which is not desirable.

Many nations promoted communism half Century ago. Nobody could censor them. But can we see some consequences now?

You can promote atheism. Christians will not censor you. The consequence? I think you might know that. At least it is very very clear to any Christian.

 

[Davian]

If the person do not believe when he died, then he will not see God forever.

I don't see any gods now.

 

[Gottservant]

Those are the implications though, if you want to forcibly halt the discussion of a topic.

Why do you think we should we give such actions the benefit of the doubt?

You are trying to make them the implications, but they are not (necessarily) the implications

The fact that you suggest this is something to do with the benefit of the doubt, points directly to the fact that (in your mind) something to do with freedom of interpretation is still relevant.

Because the benefit of the doubt is related to the freedom of interpretation, by the fact that when you are free because of the benefit of the doubt, you interpret freely (which is justifiable, but only if no implied judgment is hanging over the people in question)

 

[Tree of Life]

When you censor an idea, or cooperate with the censorship of an idea, you have ceded the point intellectually.

Isn't it possible that some ideas do not deserve to be expressed? Or is it possible that we should guard our children from certain ideas?

When an argument can not be tolerated, it means it is already lost.

An idea and an argument are not identical.

 

[Gottservant]

An idea and an argument are not identical.

Exactly what I'm trying to say, right there - thankyou!

 

[bhsmte]

For example, if you promote hate, then you should not be censored. But you will face the consequence. It could be anything which is not desirable.

Many nations promoted communism half Century ago. Nobody could censor them. But can we see some consequences now?

You can promote atheism. Christians will not censor you. The consequence? I think you might know that. At least it is very very clear to any Christian.

Clear as mud.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

For example, if you promote hate, then you should not be censored. But you will face the consequence. It could be anything which is not desirable.

Many nations promoted communism half Century ago. Nobody could censor them. But can we see some consequences now?

You can promote atheism. Christians will not censor you. The consequence? I think you might know that. At least it is very very clear to any Christian.

What do you mean promoted, as in past tense?

And when you state that Christians will not censor the promotion of atheism, which Christians are you referencing and in what context? Cause if you're saying no Christians have censored the promotion of atheism then it's a good thing you're not Pinocchio or your nose would have just shattered your screen.

 

[juvenissun]

What do you mean promoted, as in past tense?

And when you state that Christians will not censor the promotion of atheism, which Christians are you referencing and in what context? Cause if you're saying no Christians have censored the promotion of atheism then it's a good thing you're not Pinocchio or your nose would have just shattered your screen.

Then I will change it to: "Christians shall not censor the promotion of atheism"

 

[juvenissun]

I don't see any gods now.

You see Christians now.

 

[bhsmte]

You see Christians now.

And also 2/3 of the world's population with different beliefs or no belief at all.

 

[variant]

Isn't it possible that some ideas do not deserve to be expressed?

No. If there is a good reason why an idea is bad we should be able to demonstrate it.

Or is it possible that we should guard our children from certain ideas?

I am speaking mainly of people who have reached adulthood.

An idea and an argument are not identical.

How else are ideas expressed?

 

[variant]

You are trying to make them the implications, but they are not (necessarily) the implications

The fact that you suggest this is something to do with the benefit of the doubt, points directly to the fact that (in your mind) something to do with freedom of interpretation is still relevant.

Because the benefit of the doubt is related to the freedom of interpretation, by the fact that when you are free because of the benefit of the doubt, you interpret freely (which is justifiable, but only if no implied judgment is hanging over the people in question)

The implication of someone forcing something not to be discussed is that you don't believe the discussion will end well.

It's very simple. There is no need to censor what in any area where you don't feel weak. It is a sign of weakness.

 

[Davian]

You see Christians now.

Religion does not require actual gods.

 

[Gottservant]

The implication of someone forcing something not to be discussed is that you don't believe the discussion will end well.

It's very simple. There is no need to censor what in any area where you don't feel weak. It is a sign of weakness.

Yes, but neither do you say everything

so how do you tell the difference?

 

[juvenissun]

Religion does not require actual gods.

Christianity has An Actural God.

 

[juvenissun]

And also 2/3 of the world's population with different beliefs or no belief at all.

That is fine. Everyone WILL face the consequence of one's faith.

 

[variant]

Yes, but neither do you say everything

so how do you tell the difference?

Self censorship, or not speaking on something voluntarily, is not what I am talking about.

 

[Davian]

Christianity has An Actural God.

I will need more than your opinion on that.

 

[Gottservant]

Self censorship, or not speaking on something voluntarily, is not what I am talking about.

ok, but how do you make or justify that distinction?

without speaking? according to your rule?