Is hate good? Should we allow the censorship of hate speech?

[Greatest I am]

Oops.

[gaffo]

thanks or reply - have to get beer and cigarettes first though before i reply (I dissagree with the guy in your link - i watched it - agree with too/but mostly dissagree).

I will reply in full why when i get back.

thanks for replying to me - love disscussing religion though an atheist.

If that is the case, you will have to seek one elsewhere as that is not what I am. I like to think I am a cut above.

I know you are not an Athiest, but if you think me being one means I'm not worthy of discussing Religion - so be it.

too bad too, I've noted your posts from that "other site" for many years and found value in them.

oh well.

[gaffo]

the vid you provided is the classical "mythic view" aka Richard Carrier and the other guy Ehrman debated - i.e. whether Jesus existed (jesus the man).

the guy in your vid does not think so.

i do, and that the man became more than a man from

1st. being made Son of God at his death

then a few years later

2nd being made Son of God at age 30 via his baptism by john (gosp of Mark is my fav - Jesus is the most human in this work - and why i like it).

then a few years later

3rd Jesus was born God's son (Matt/luke)

then a few years later

4th Jesus was God's son (John also claims he is God himself!) from the beginning of time.

I liked these vids (check out all the numbers from 1-10 or so - they are great and in detail about many particular books of the bible.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUfAvjNydw8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdiJ793twJA

if you deny YHWH - and deny that there was a man that lived called Jesus (son of Pantera - interesting disscussion about this on one of the 10 or so vids (not in the 2 gave above - but in a couple of others by the guy speaker - another part i think in otherwords), but value the myths of jesus and the gnostiv views of some works about him, then you to me seem to be a Agnostic/Atheist that values the gnostic myths concerning jesus.

BTW Jesus is mentioned as existing in Josephus' work and the jewish mishna (where he is mentioned as "jesus the son of Pantara"

Celsus also mentions him in what is attributed to him via Origin;s discourse with - and also claims he is the son of Pantara.

There were people who were named Jesus back then but to say that the miracle working Jesus was real means believing in the supernatural and that is too foolish for me to do.

If a miracle working Jesus can exist, then so can all the miracle workers including Lepricons.

No thanks.

If you believe in evolution, then to think a human God would be anything more than a human is counter intuitive.

Do you think man can break natural law?

Regards
DL

Clearly you do not understand my mentality.

I value the historicity of the man "Jesus" (yes a common name back then - like mike today). my referecences above were to the one you and i are dicussing.

I know the miracles are just "expansion of a man to a god - mythos via centuries"

[Greatest I am]

thanks or reply - have to get beer and cigarettes first though before i reply (I dissagree with the guy in your link - i watched it - agree with too/but mostly dissagree).

I will reply in full why when i get back.

thanks for replying to me - love disscussing religion though an atheist.

If that is the case, you will have to seek one elsewhere as that is not what I am. I like to think I am a cut above.

I know you are not an Athiest, but if you think me being one means I'm not worthy of discussing Religion - so be it.

too bad too, I've noted your posts from that "other site" for many years and found value in them.

oh well.

Oops.

I thought you were calling me an atheist.
You must have caught me on a hurried day.

Thanks for finding value in my renderings.

Regards
DL

[gaffo]

If that is the case, you will have to seek one elsewhere as that is not what I am. I like to think I am a cut above.

I know you are not an Athiest, but if you think me being one means I'm not worthy of discussing Religion - so be it.

too bad too, I've noted your posts from that "other site" for many years and found value in them.

oh well.

Oops.

I thought you were calling me an atheist.
You must have caught me on a hurried day.

Thanks for finding value in my renderings.

Regards
DL

never thought you are an atheist.

i welcome discussion and understanding your views on these matters, even though a lowly atheist.

modern atheists are ninnies with an ax to grind.

I'm 19th century old school Paul Carus type atheist. i have no ax and not at war with any god.

[Greatest I am]

I know you are not an Athiest, but if you think me being one means I'm not worthy of discussing Religion - so be it.

too bad too, I've noted your posts from that "other site" for many years and found value in them.

oh well.

Oops.

I thought you were calling me an atheist.
You must have caught me on a hurried day.

Thanks for finding value in my renderings.

Regards
DL

never thought you are an atheist.

i welcome discussion and understanding your views on these matters, even though a lowly atheist.

modern atheists are ninnies with an ax to grind.

I'm 19th century old school Paul Carus type atheist. i have no ax and not at war with any god.

Given the damage done to us over time by religions, we should all be at war against them.

To not hate what hurts us is to reward evil.

Regards
DL

[Belinda]

Philosopher wrote:

Hate speech should only illegalize hate speech against people for their traits that they have no say in.

Like ethnicity, nationality, skin color or disabilities.

It certainly should not apply to religion or politics.

I agree . However religion, as far as hate speech goes, is nearly always code for race, skin colour, or foreign ethnic customs. Therefore I'd include illegalising religion as a target for hate speech. That's to say it should be illegal to claim that all religionists of this or that persuasion are bad people.

[Greatest I am]

Philosopher wrote:

Hate speech should only illegalize hate speech against people for their traits that they have no say in.

Like ethnicity, nationality, skin color or disabilities.

It certainly should not apply to religion or politics.

I agree . However religion, as far as hate speech goes, is nearly always code for race, skin colour, or foreign ethnic customs. Therefore I'd include illegalising religion as a target for hate speech. That's to say it should be illegal to claim that all religionists of this or that persuasion are bad people.

When all in the group fly the same flag and follow the some ideology, how do you tell the good ones from the bad ones?

Regards
DL

[Belinda]

GreatestIAm, there is a perceptable difference between religious moderates and fanatical ideologues.

[Belinda]

GreatestIAm, there is a perceptible difference between religious moderates and fanatical ideologues.I'm not a trained policeman and even I can tell the difference.

[Greatest I am]

GreatestIAm, there is a perceptable difference between religious moderates and fanatical ideologues.

Sure, but if they fly the same flag, the cross or the star and crescent, for instance, how do you tell the good ones from the bad ones or the right from the left?

It seems you think that there are both good and bad in all the various denominations. You would likely be correct but again, how do you tell the good from the evil?

Regards
DL

[Belinda]

GreatestIAm wrote:

Sure, but if they fly the same flag, the cross or the star and crescent, for instance, how do you tell the good ones from the bad ones or the right from the left?

As the police tell the difference between baddies and goodies who all wear ties to work. For most symbolic dress the wearing of it is tradition not ideology.

[Greatest I am]

GreatestIAm wrote:

Sure, but if they fly the same flag, the cross or the star and crescent, for instance, how do you tell the good ones from the bad ones or the right from the left?

As the police tell the difference between baddies and goodies who all wear ties to work. For most symbolic dress the wearing of it is tradition not ideology.

Tradition, fashion and custom are why we recognize the flgs and symbols of the various immoral religions like Christianity and Islam.

Both Christianity and Islam, slave holding ideologies, have basically developed into intolerant, homophobic and misogynous religions. Both religions have grown themselves by the sword instead of good deeds and continue with their immoral ways in spite of secular law showing them the moral ways.

Jesus said we would know his people by their works and deeds. That means Jesus would not recognize Christians and Muslims as his people, and neither do I. Jesus would call Christianity and Islam abominations.

Gnostic Christians did in the past, and I am proudly continuing that tradition and honest irrefutable evaluation based on morality.

https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/theft-values/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxoxPapPxXk

Humanity centered religions, good? Yes.

Supernaturally based religions, evil? Yes.

Do you agree?

Regards
DL

[Belinda]

I don't agree with you GreatestIAm, because Christians are mainly old people or non-intellectuals who use their churches as social meeting venues. The church service is for many Christians the occasion of the weekly get together, not the reason for it. True they will say that they are Christians but few can explain the myth as theologians can explain it. It's also true that Christianity is growing in some places such as West Africa, and in evangelistic sects in the UK.
It's not a good idea to throw out an institution because it has shady bits in its past. Christian churches help to perpetuate good messages and do a lot of good social work.

Belief in a supernatural form of existence is not in itself bad for people. What is bad is when believers in the supernatural claim to be high and mighty bosses because God loves them best.

There is good in gnostic Christianity too. However the trouble with gnostic Christianity is that it's elitist.

[Greatest I am]

I don't agree with you GreatestIAm, because Christians are mainly old people or non-intellectuals who use their churches as social meeting venues. The church service is for many Christians the occasion of the weekly get together, not the reason for it. True they will say that they are Christians but few can explain the myth as theologians can explain it. It's also true that Christianity is growing in some places such as West Africa, and in evangelistic sects in the UK.
It's not a good idea to throw out an institution because it has shady bits in its past. Christian churches help to perpetuate good messages and do a lot of good social work.
I think I understand why you would like gnostic Christianity.

Not likely, or you would not say that Christianity has shady bits when those bits include Inquisitions and murders.

Why do you think I like Gnostic Christianity?

Regards
DL