Re: Another Censorship . . . .

> How do you propose to stop him? How do you propose that we ensure that 
> 'legitimate' content is not blocked?

  Tell him to use his own computer? ;-) Seriously, I'd suggest using a
fairly weak filter that just gets the most blatantly obvious stuff.

> >  My point is simply that context has a lot to do with what something is
> >or isn't.
> >  
> >
> Making an altogether different statement is different to using the same 
> statement in a different context.

  No, what I mean is the fellow could say what I originally suggested,
while not suggesting the reverse for everyone else. But, I think my
fairly weak example is already stretched as far as it can go, and you
got what I was mostly trying to say anyway... 


> Umm, I think maybe you meant 'hit someone and accidentally kill them'. I 
> don't see that there are many circumstances where you can 'accidentally' 
> hit someone, at least not hard enough to result in a fatality :).

  I should have mentioned I meant "hit" as in hitting with a car.
"Oops... I didn't see that guy."

> If I understand you correctly, Christianity doesn't deal with levels of 
> intent, levels of resulting harm or levels of responsibility, but 
> absolutes. Either you committed a sin, or you didn't. Whether you did or 
> possibly could have harmed anyone is irrelevant. The only consideration 
> is whether you did something that you were told not to do in the Bible. 
> That doesn't sound very just to me.

  My illustration was to suggest the following... no matter what in
manslaughter or murder, someone died. Whether I intended to do it or not
isn't going to change that fact. Thus, beyond the physical harm, there
is something more taken into account. If only "measurable harm" was
gaged, there wouldn't be a "manslaughter" classification.

  Likewise, Jesus is essentially saying that there is something other
than physically hurting someone or damaging society that should be taken
into account. 

  But anyway, my main point in all of this was not to argue about
morality, but rather simply to note that Christians -- at least if they
follow Christian theology -- shouldn't suggest that someone with
same-sex attraction is sinful right off the bat... it is what they chose
to do with that inclination or temptation that decides whether it is
sinful or not. Same goes for everyone else too.

  -Tim

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy R. Butler       Universal Networks      www.uninet.info
==================== <[email protected]> ====================
| Christian Portal:      | Have you not learned great lessons |
|      www.faithtree.com | from those  who  braced themselves |
| GNU/Linux News:        | against  you   and   disputed  the |
|            www.ofb.biz | passage with you?   --Walt Whitman |


Kde-cafe mailing list - [email protected]
http://ofb.biz/lists/listinfo.cgi/kde-cafe

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this mailinglist are the personal
opinions of the author and do not represent OfB.biz: Open for Business, KDE or the author's employer.