Is it up to the person offended to walk away...or just suck it up?
How is this any different than people around the world? You are pointing to games politicians play around the world, and people side up with the ones they want to hear, and ignore (and even try to silence) those they don't want to hear. These are rhetorical games that have been played since ancient Greeks put a name on this, and I would bet it was going on long before then.All the same, if I write on the internet that Mike said that, and Mike did not say that -- it is not the truth, and it will sit there forever and be shared with others who will propagate it. It is incumbent on those who know Mike to defend him by correcting the untruth.
I am totally entitled to say: my religion says X, but I am not entitled to continue to say that your religion says Y -- when I do not really know what your religion or your scripture says, apart from bits I learned from Wikipedia -- and just keep on repeating it after it has continuously been explained to me, to point of exhaustion, that it is an incorrect statement -- from which point it becomes a deliberate purpose to spread disinformation?
Half-truth takes many forms, including selective quote picking out of context, ignoring contrary facts etc. Of course it is often not deliberate. But once it has been pointed out to me and yet I ignore the correction and continue repeating it, then it becomes deliberate.
Therein is the tightrope.We can do that...but my question lies with tje sensitive topics which for some are lines that shouldn't be crossed, triggers, but for others questions that puzzle them.
Do we have a mine field of pandoras boxes or a policy of open exploration and if you are offended stfu?
Wil said:Flip side you raised you hand and requested censure. You read your warnings and the Cox and continued...we must be vigilant to police the police (we have already defunded them)
x2Er...I can always out-thick you.... could you rephrase please?
To me it's not the subject but the manner of the discussion. Anything is open to proper, intelligent discussion. But is it discussion, or is my mind closed to anything not supported by the scripture I follow? Am I really asking questions, or are my questions just rhetorical?It seems it is not possible to have a discussion respectively about virgin birth, resurrection, Gaza, or drawing a picture of Mohamed without infuriating or at the very least making my Christian, Jewish and Muslim friends uncomfortable respectively.
Do I need constant reminding of what has already been covered to exhaustion across multiple threads, etc?
To me it's not the subject but the manner of the discussion. Anything is open to proper, intelligent discussion..
The Association of Religion Data Archives (relying on World Christian Trends) estimated in 2010 that 82.0% of South Africans identified as Christian, 7.1% identified with indigenous religions, 5.4% identified as agnostic, 2.4% identified as Hindu, 1.7% identified as Muslim, 0.5% identified as Baháʼí, 0.3% each identified as Buddhist and atheist, 0.2% identified as Jewish, and less than 0.1% identified with each other group.
Muslims talking about/ mocking the Christian faith and scripture with only basic Wikipedia knowledge and phrased in repetitive, downtalking terminology might be. I find most Muslims to come from a higher level -- most that I have encountered show some respect, imoDon't you think it's a bit rude to suggest that Muslims talking about their faith is "repetitive, mocking, covered to
Germany officially recognises colonial-era Namibia genocide.
I'm not criticising Germany here .. I applaud them in admitting to prior attrocities.
It is interesting to see that many of the Nama peoples in Namibia have become Muslims. I'm not surprised.
Almighty God is with those who are are / have been oppressed.
I find most Muslims to come from a higher level -- most that I have encountered..