Is this phrase discriminatory?

[rusra02]

Well, if you take having regret indicative of having done something bad or a misdeed, we have.

Gen. 6:6
The LORD regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled.

1 Sam 15:35
Until the day Samuel died, he did not go to see Saul again, though Samuel mourned for him. And the Lord regretted that he had made Saul king over Israel.​

And even though Gen 8:20-22 doesn't say god regretted what he did, saying he would never do it again may suggests regret.

20 Then Noah built an altar to the Lord and, taking some of all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it. 21 The Lord smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: “Never again will I curse the ground because of humans, even though every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done.

22 “As long as the earth endures,
seedtime and harvest,
cold and heat,
summer and winter,
day and night
will never cease.”
​

And, of course, there are all the killings of innocent lives he committed, which almost everyone considers to be bad.

.​

I believe the Bible teaches that all of God's ways are perfect, so he never regrets something he does because it was wrong or a mistake. (Numbers 23:19) In Hebrew, to feel regret can mean to change one's mind or intention, based on a change in circumstances. For example, when the wicked Ninevites repented when Jonah warned them of imminent destruction, "When the true God saw what they did, how they had turned back from their evil ways, he reconsidered [or felt regret over] the calamity that he said he would bring on them, and he did not bring it." (Jonah 3:10)
Only in this sense does the true God feel regret. As our Creator, I believe Jehovah has every right to decide who merits death. Most people do not realize our true condition before God. (Ephesians 2:1-5) As Abraham said to God, "It is unthinkable that you would act in this manner by putting the righteous man to death with the wicked one so that the outcome for the righteous man and the wicked is the same!" (Genesis 18:25)

 

[rusra02]

Truly? What of Lot and his daughters? What of his wife? What of Abraham and his son or his concubine? What of the genocide of Egypt? And the first born sons? And so on. If that does not paint God in a rather poor light, I don't know what does. Of course, I don't believe God did any of that.

What of Lot and his daughters? And Abraham? There was no genocide in Egypt except that attempted by Pharoah against the Israelites. God's destruction of Egypt's firstborn was selective. Those Egyptians who exercised faith could save their firstborn by following the direction Moses gave.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

If you are talking to me, I didnt get your alert.

I dont like the phrase. It is as if I tell a Christian "I hate your Christ but I love you the same." How can you love someone if you are against what makes that person, who Not What he is?

Instead, Id say "I disagree with Christ teachings And I love you in Christ nonetheless."

I am not judging who you are based on what I believe. That is cruel.

With that said....

You've never disliked anything other people said, did or liked? I mean isn't this thread an expression of you not liking this opinion? Then are you discriminatory?

If its sports, sure. If its Allah, Christ, Joseph Smith, no.

I am not separate from my faith. If someone does not like my faith (important=to the point of making discriminary statements to me) then I have a problem.

Like above, I love my friend a lot, I disagree with her Christ, and I would never say "I hate your Christ actions against others, but I love you" ... thats saying "I hate her in Christ" if I said disagree, probably sounds better "I disagree with who you are in Christ"...instead I "accept and love" who she is in Christ "regardless of my beliefs."

It is not about me.

Likewise with homosexuality. Scripture defines it as an action. If someone loves someone else, they see things in that other persons shoes.

They may disagree with it, but the statements they make shouldnt contradict each other: I love you but not what makes you, you.

The OP statement is saying: I love you, but not what makes you, you.

Makes sense?

Hmm, well it's walking a fine line. Because if I say it is discriminatory then I'd have to accept that disliking any aspect of a person's behaviour, tastes or lifestyle would be discriminatory too. And that's not what I believe. But at the same time, I feel some say this phrase to mask their homophobia. Some people do say it sincerely though, because they are very faithful to their religion's interpretations but they don't hate the persons who have behaviours their religion disproves of.

To me as long as they are not overtly displaying hatred and not trying to impose this on everyone, I can let that slide. I'd be a hypocrite if I didn't, because there are behaviours I dislike too. I can't agree to the sentence and might challenge someone saying such a thing but I'm more concerned about people who are violent, who try to change laws and discriminate. I feel people who are genuine are trying to follow their religion and still love people even if I disagree with this (heh, see how this works?) Would I be discriminatory towards them, since I dislike that point of view? I don't feel that I am.

You've never disliked anything other people said, did or liked? I mean isn't this thread an expression of you not liking this opinion? Then are you discriminatory?

Also, I think I probably have a slightly different view of what a person is. I don't equate a whole person with one thing I dislike about them, that would be unfair, no one's perfect. I also don't equate my whole being with little aspects of my personality, likes, dislikes, behaviours... I don't embody bisexuality, it is a small part of who I am and I don't care if people dislike that, if they can see me as being more than just a bisexual. I am more than that. I think it's reducing a person to see it this way. It would be like saying I dislike smoking and view people who smoke as nothing more than smokers. They are people, there's more to them than smoking.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

It IS different somehow, but as others mentioned, one would think it would be something like this:

"I love people, even if they eat boogers, I just disagree with the fact that they eat boogers."

I tried to pick something that doesn't hurt other people in that particular statement - eating boogers hurts no one, and neither does a man loving another man or a woman loving another woman behind closed doors. And it should be completely fine for anyone to disagree with eating boogers - it's not really discriminatory to say you don't like the act of eating boogers.

I think where the feeling of discrimination comes in is when you pair the above with calling out the behavior as a "sin". You then group their behavior in with the likes of murder, thievery, adultery, etc. and, let's face it, making that kind of analogy IS judging them. So, let's say you eat your boogers, you enjoy doing that (as disgusting as many others would feel that that is) and then someone tells you that you are going to hell because you eat your boogers. Your immediate thought would probably be to defend yourself because (here is the key) YOU'RE NOT HURTING ANYONE.

 

[idea]

It IS different somehow, but as others mentioned, one would think it would be something like this:

"I love people, even if they eat boogers, I just disagree with the fact that they eat boogers."

I tried to pick something that doesn't hurt other people in that particular statement - eating boogers hurts no one, and neither does a man loving another man or a woman loving another woman behind closed doors. And it should be completely fine for anyone to disagree with eating boogers - it's not really discriminatory to say you don't like the act of eating boogers.

I think where the feeling of discrimination comes in is when you pair the above with calling out the behavior as a "sin". You then group their behavior in with the likes of murder, thievery, adultery, etc. and, let's face it, making that kind of analogy IS judging them. So, let's say you eat your boogers, you enjoy doing that (as disgusting as many others would feel that that is) and then someone tells you that you are going to hell because you eat your boogers. Your immediate thought would probably be to defend yourself because (here is the key) YOU'RE NOT HURTING ANYONE.

but... eating burgers leads to spreading contagious diseases which does in fact hurt other people...

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

but... eating burgers leads to spreading contagious diseases which does in fact hurt other people...

Haha... I thought someone might bring that up. But really, substitute anything you want... "stamp collecting" - I, personally, think it is a fairly boring hobby and that anyone willing to buy a stamp for the exorbitant prices of "rare" stamps is out of their minds. What if I were to call stamp collecting a "sin"? Claim everyone who collects stamps is going to hell? I have a feeling that there'd be a few stamp collectors who might have some choice words for me.

 

[JoStories]

The Buddha said that He attained enlightenment years before he was enlightened in his "plane." Then He says "you think I am extinguish. [I am not] I am always here listening to the Law" when its spoken. Meyahana teaches that we are all Buddhas. We are all enlightened before were born and after we pass. The point of the Buddha is to end suffering; since suffering covers up who we are as Buddhas. We are still enlightened even though we suffer in birth, growth, age, and death.

I feel the Buddha didnt end suffering but lead the way so that people Accept it in peace. Swim with the waves. Dont let them knock you down.

If that means for you to have the spirit of God, toto. Thats who you become (how I see it) not just what you believe.

Anyway,

I agree with your other post with the homosexuality comment. I still hold strong your believe is what makes you, you.

Its the difference between:

1.

A. Who are you?
B. I am a Christian, a person who believes Jesus as my Lord and Savior

Compared to this

2.

A. Who are you?
B. I Am a child of Christ.

1.

A. Would you be a muslim if that were true?
B. Sure. If it were true, Id chamge my belief.

Compared to

2.

A. Would you be a muslim if that were true?
B. I know I Am a Child of Christ. I cant become something I am not. That is like asking me why should I not become a boy when Im a girl.

I see people pick and choose religions a lot. We have many world-views and many practices. They are Our (not just a wv) world-view because thats how we see the world interpret everything we know through the lens of our faith(s). If we separate our lens from our bodies, how can we see? How can we a path without knowing or even believing In the path you walk?

Anyway, long story short, to me it defeats the purpose of having a religion if it isnt personal lifestyle and world view but a hobby once an switch when one doesnt work well.

When children of christ find things that dont work well, thry "go to" their faith for help. Their inner being or God is their source not hobby.

Some christians in time of pain run "from god" because many to them, belief is not who they are..not personal...so, if God cant help, Buddha will.

I see a severe difference in those who live their faith: it becomes their lives and someone who picks a belief but dont make it their world view.

I see what you are saying Carlita and yes, I do live my faith. It affects every aspect of my life. I get that really. That said, when I was researching, it became necessary at times to set that view aside to work in the scientific realm. It was beyond hard at times. Particularly because I was often researching spirituality and its place in a theorem of nursing. For me, other than those times, I am a child of God, of the Buddha spirit. I do believe we all have The Buddha within us but I also believe that my higher soul is evolving. That is the purpose of dukkha. The First Noble Truth, or at least, the way I interpret it. My best friend and I have been through many lifetimes together and we have always met in each life. Our lives are almost mirror images. We struggle with the same types of Dukkha in each life. Yet, our higher selves are further along the journey. I wish there were better words or we could talk in person because this way is a struggle in itself. I do think we are closer in thinking than it would appear.

 

[idea]

Haha... I thought someone might bring that up. But really, substitute anything you want... "stamp collecting" - I, personally, think it is a fairly boring hobby and that anyone willing to buy a stamp for the exorbitant prices of "rare" stamps is out of their minds. What if I were to call stamp collecting a "sin"? Claim everyone who collects stamps is going to hell? I have a feeling that there'd be a few stamp collectors who might have some choice words for me.

If the stamp collectors have a clear conscience, and truly believe in their hearts that they are not doing anything wrong, they would not be offended or hurt by what anyone else might say. The only thing that can really hurt anyone is their own conscience.

 

[JoStories]

What of Lot and his daughters? And Abraham? There was no genocide in Egypt except that attempted by Pharoah against the Israelites. God's destruction of Egypt's firstborn was selective. Those Egyptians who exercised faith could save their firstborn by following the direction Moses gave.

Yet God did kill all the first born of Egypt. That, in and of itself, is monstrous, IMO. But I don't believe God would have done that. You are free to if you like. Nor do I believe in the stories of Abraham and his son, or Lot or any of the absolutely horrific actions attributed to God. You can if you like but for me, it paints God into a being I would not worship or want to come to know ever.

 

[rusra02]

Yet God did kill all the first born of Egypt. That, in and of itself, is monstrous, IMO. But I don't believe God would have done that. You are free to if you like. Nor do I believe in the stories of Abraham and his son, or Lot or any of the absolutely horrific actions attributed to God. You can if you like but for me, it paints God into a being I would not worship or want to come to know ever.

Given the circumstances, IMO, what Jehovah did to the Egyptians was necessary. Obstinate Pharoah had defied the true God repeatedly despite the ruination this brought on his people. God could have destroyed the whole nation of Egypt to free his people from slavery. As mankind's Creator and Lifegiver, Jehovah has both the authority and right to decide who will live or not, IMO. So while it is sad when humans bring calamity upon themselves, blaming God for firmly exercising his Sovereignty is simply wrong, I think.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Um, you moved little by little from "I disagree" to "I hate", so I'm afraid I can't say yes or no

Big difference there.

I personally, as a Muslim, don't see a problem in saying that someone likes Muslims but disagrees or does not believe in Islam or what it stands for. You know, I don't even have a problem with those saying they hate Islam, as long as it is a thought no intended to cause me harm.

We cannot control beliefs and conviction, and I see we don't have the right to impose on it. I believe one is judged for what's within they do and say, not what they believe.

I also don't like football/soccer.

 

[JoStories]

Um, you moved little by little from "I disagree" to "I hate", so I'm afraid I can't say yes or no

Big difference there.

I personally, as a Muslim, don't see a problem in saying that someone likes Muslims but disagrees or does not believe in Islam or what it stands for. You know, I don't even have a problem with those saying they hate Islam, as long as it is a thought no intended to cause me harm.

We cannot control beliefs and conviction, and I see we don't have the right to impose on it. I believe one is judged for what's within they do and say, not what they believe.

I also don't like football/soccer.

It is my belief that people who say they hate Islam don't know much about it. I have quite a few Muslim friends. Not a single one espouses or endorses the violence done in the name of your faith. IMO, the two are diametrically opposed based on the Qu'ran. If you have to endure that kind of ridiculous bias or bigotry my dear, I am so terribly sorry people can be that stupid.

 

[JoStories]

Given the circumstances, IMO, what Jehovah did to the Egyptians was necessary. Obstinate Pharoah had defied the true God repeatedly despite the ruination this brought on his people. God could have destroyed the whole nation of Egypt to free his people from slavery. As mankind's Creator and Lifegiver, Jehovah has both the authority and right to decide who will live or not, IMO. So while it is sad when humans bring calamity upon themselves, blaming God for firmly exercising his Sovereignty is simply wrong, I think.

What God did; killing the infants who had done nothing whatsoever, was necessary?? Why? Was the intent to say worship me or I will smoke your butt? If so, that makes that god (not capitalized on purpose) into the most heinous monster I can conceive of. It is no different than what Hitler did. Are you really saying that if you are wrong about your ideas of God, that it would be perfectly fine with you for God to kill your children or family? That is not a god. Its a monster.

 

[rusra02]

What God did; killing the infants who had done nothing whatsoever, was necessary?? Why? Was the intent to say worship me or I will smoke your butt? If so, that makes that god (not capitalized on purpose) into the most heinous monster I can conceive of. It is no different than what Hitler did. Are you really saying that if you are wrong about your ideas of God, that it would be perfectly fine with you for God to kill your children or family? That is not a god. Its a monster.

God holds parents responsible for their children's life and welfare. Had it not been for God's mercy, I think none of us would be alive nor have the hope for everlasting life. What the Bible, not I, is saying is that "Jehovah is not slow concerning his promise [to remove wicked ones], as some people consider slowness, but he is patient with you because he does not desire anyone to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance." (2 Peter 3:9) I believe the Bible answers our questions but more importantly, helps us know the true God and his ways and thoughts, which are ever so much higher than our limited thinking.(Isaiah 55:9)

 

[JoStories]

God holds parents responsible for their children's life and welfare. Had it not been for God's mercy, I think none of us would be alive nor have the hope for everlasting life. What the Bible, not I, is saying is that "Jehovah is not slow concerning his promise [to remove wicked ones], as some people consider slowness, but he is patient with you because he does not desire anyone to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance." (2 Peter 3:9) I believe the Bible answers our questions but more importantly, helps us know the true God and his ways and thoughts, which are ever so much higher than our limited thinking.(Isaiah 55:9)

You can believe whatever you want Rusra. If the above works for you, delightful. What I do find offensive, however, is your need to add "the true God" as if dismissing anyone with the temerity to hold a differing view. I am not dismissing that you think that the Bible is the only source of what you consider your "true God". What I am saying is that in that one remark, you insult everyone who holds a different view of God. Do you have the right to say that my view of God is wrong? Would you like it if every response to you from people like me stated "The one true God, Buddha". I would never do that as I cannot and would never presume to know if God has the capacity to be able to appeal to all faiths. For me God is Surya and Cernunnos and Jehovah and Christ and The Buddha and tons more. Are you willing to think you can speak for God?

 

[rusra02]

You can believe whatever you want Rusra. If the above works for you, delightful. What I do find offensive, however, is your need to add "the true God" as if dismissing anyone with the temerity to hold a differing view. I am not dismissing that you think that the Bible is the only source of what you consider your "true God". What I am saying is that in that one remark, you insult everyone who holds a different view of God. Do you have the right to say that my view of God is wrong? Would you like it if every response to you from people like me stated "The one true God, Buddha". I would never do that as I cannot and would never presume to know if God has the capacity to be able to appeal to all faiths. For me God is Surya and Cernunnos and Jehovah and Christ and The Buddha and tons more. Are you willing to think you can speak for God?

Jesus Christ called his Father "the only true God." (John 17:3) I believe it is Jehovah's will "that all sorts of people should be saved and come to an accurate knowledge of truth." (1 Timothy 2:4) It is not my intention to insult anyone, and I do not think identifying Jehovah as the only true God should offend you. If there is a true God, then those called gods are really not gods, and worshipping them would only bring harm to their worshipers, IMO. (Isaiah 31:7) That is what I believe based on what the Bible says.

 

[Smart_Guy]

It is my belief that people who say they hate Islam don't know much about it. I have quite a few Muslim friends. Not a single one espouses or endorses the violence done in the name of your faith. IMO, the two are diametrically opposed based on the Qu'ran. If you have to endure that kind of ridiculous bias or bigotry my dear, I am so terribly sorry people can be that stupid.

Please don't apologize, it's not your fault.

You're a good person, ma'am. Thank you

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

If the stamp collectors have a clear conscience, and truly believe in their hearts that they are not doing anything wrong, they would not be offended or hurt by what anyone else might say. The only thing that can really hurt anyone is their own conscience.

I agree with this somewhat. But there ends up being a line that is crossed when you have A LOT of people saying the same thing. Think "Salem Witch Trials". That is the most extreme case of the kind of persecution I am referring to - where the innocent women wrongly accused of being witches during that time, who "had a clear conscience", and "truly believed in their hearts that they were not doing anything wrong" could not simply "not be offended or hurt" by what their persecutors were saying. It became a detriment and danger to their very being.

Just saying that your ideas of only your conscience being able to hurt you are a bit assuming.

 

[izzy4games12]

Well saying that homosexuality is what makes that person, THAT person, is a very direct and upfront way of labeling someone. Homosexuality isn't exactly a part of ones being, but a part of that beings behavior.

I can't say I love my naughtier because he's cool, but I don't like that he is black because that's not a behavior but an actual part of him.

Same with saying "I like you, but you're too nice/rude." Of course there are people who are genuinely those very things, but it's a part of their behavior and that can be changed over ones life span.

As to whether the phrase is discriminatory or not, it would depend on who is making the statement.

From a Christian perspective, people are all equal to be loved no matter what they have been through, going through, associate themselves with, or agree/disagree with. And not just loved but loved like a brother or sister. Technically it would be a discriminatory statement, but not a hateful statement. Again from a Christian perspective, homosexuality falls under the category of "sin", so the discrimination isn't necessarily towards homosexuals but towards people living sinful lives. In other words it would be a discrimination against sin? Seeing how everyone is a sinner, we are meant to love everyone as equal, but as a Christian, that love is to be shown and used in order to help people living a "sinful life" to come out of it. Aka one of the most basic goals of a Christian life.

Now, if it were an average surburban an family that has no knowledge on the topic of homosexuality in reference to the bible, but simply out of personal choice, it would be a discrimination towards the actual homosexuality.

So just using these two perspectives, a Christian disagreeing with homosexuality isn't discriminating directly against homosexuality( which would be wrong according to the Bible), but is discriminating against the category of "Sin"(again, in which homosexuality falls under).

A family with no prior knowledge except observation and personal judgements ARE discriminating directly against homosexuality since to them, homosexuality doesn't fall under any other category.

Well I hope this helped give a little insight

 

[ChristineES]

I don't make it a common practice to go up to people and say "I like you, even though you ______". I will just stop at the "I like you" and leave it. I've had too many people say things to me like "Gee, Christine, you're really nice but you know what your problem, it's _____________(insert comment)" It's rather demeaning, to me, when people say things like that. It makes the person sound rather condescending. It's so irritating to me, that I cringe when I hear people do it to someone else.