Which comment - the one about negroes? The one about Jews? The one about Christians?
To which ‘saying’ are you referring?
“Offense can’t be given if it isn’t taken”
So you think simple observation of Christians and common Black behavior requires a particular skin color?
My my, how presumptuous can one get.
They have pills for that… just in case.
Glad to see that my “attitude to be honest” had influence.
Barcelonic is presumptuous (and young).
No.
But then again, it is pretty hard to be a human and be a “good Christian”.
It takes humility and the lack of presumption, which of course means the lack of prejudice (pre-judgment).
Judging is a Judist art (it is where you got the word “Judge”).
Forgiving is a Christian art (love => giving).
Christianity, slavery, and racism are 3 different subjects.
Despite your Secular miseducation, blacks are far from being the only slaves throughout history and seldom has race been the identifying mark of a slave.
But Christianity has no stance per se on slavery, only cruelty.
A “good Christian” will not abuse a slave.
In Judaism, Mohammedanism, and Secularism, you simply don’t call it slavery, but instead merely use a type of extortion and binding under law or fear of reputation destruction due to some debt or judged misbehavior requiring servitude for the rest of their life.
To me, a slave is a slave regardless of what you call it (back to that attitude to be honest thing)
A… it doesn’t take intent in your case.
B… I answered. You just presume too much to be able to read what was actually said.
Wow…
It means that if a person refuses to take offense, then he can’t be offended (it can’t be “given”). It is pretty primal in Christian ethic.
I am OFFENDED that you would make such a claim against me! You should be BANNED for such OFFENSIVE BEHAVIOR and HATE SPEECH!!!
As I explained, allowing people to be offended by nonsensical concerns is merely a tool for manipulation.
Barcelonic, please avoid trying to control what other people can say and do.
Kissing up to what you believe is the higher pathos won’t really do you much good around here.
Maybe that works well in your real life. Many young, naive people fall into that trap.
So sayeth the Lord barcelonic.
Bow and be grateful for Communism and the uniformity of all homosapian in the holy order.
Find one and maybe we can see.
Do you mean a Christian who is good in this particular aspect (how he treats slaves) of the various kinds of conduct of a good Christian? Or else he would just be considered a good slave owner because he treats his slaves well.
I thought the same thing as the captain, to be fair. Just saying.
i dont think jesus was a good christian…
I will admit that I make such presumptions easy to make.
Bar is merely attempting a exaggeration tactic to create hate in a direction he chooses.
He would be a good media slave.
I don’t think either of you is creating hate.
To the OP.
Its all about intent and perspective, so yes to all.
As always, mine in blue. 
Right.
Usually, in legitimate cases, the one offended has to be the one to go to the offender and get things straight because the offender might not have known he did indeed offend. Hopefully reconciliation follows.
You know, when it comes to Christians following God’s will, things the world finds sensible are nonsense to God and vice versa. Diplomacy is sometimes elusive in this area. Also strict adherence to what leads towards the perfection of faith is admonished. It’s like modifying the statement, ‘better late than never’ to ‘better never late’ or ‘offense can’t be given if it’s not taken’ to ‘offense can’t be taken if it’s never given’.
In effect, why i questioned this reply…
PersonA: My friends would be offended by your rhetoric
PersonB: Offense can’t be given if it’s not taken
PersonA: ??? But i just told you that offense WAS taken
Hands up who can see that I wasn’t looking to philosophise over that remark, as its perfectly valid, but out of context here as it doesn’t make sense in the above.
Now again, what I thought the poster had meant to write…
PersonA: My friends would be offended by your rhetoric
PersonB: Offense can’t be taken if it’s not given
PersonA: So then you are saying that no offence has in fact occurred because I haven’t spoken to my friends of this and it remains hypothetical? Or are you simply saying no offence had been intended?
In the above dialogue, it’s clear that PersonB’s response is a valid reply to the initial statement from PersonA.
But in the first dialogue the reply, while true in itself, does not address the initial statement.
I hope that makes things a little clearer
Then who is actually to blame?
“Who left the toilet seat up?”
“Who sat on it without looking?”
Your insistence is that others take on the responsibility for your irrational emotional reactions and imprison themselves to irrational emotionalism being orchestrated by others.
I find that HIGHLY OFFENSIVE and in a very serious way.
So the solution that I presented is the only solution to the problem.
Your solution of everyone trying to adjust to the irrationality of everyone else still leaves people offended by having to be confined in every conceivable manner so as to not possibly offend everyone else on the planet.
Your solution is the HIGHEST offense that could be given and is directly oppressive.
If I say something that is typically insulting to a Tree, but there is no Tree around to hear it, did I really say anything insulting?
I’m sorry James you’ve made no sense there at all. And you might want to consider the use of commas every once in a while.
Seriously though once again I put a great many number of points to you and they are all ignored while you are busy seeing fictitious words on the page in front of you which aren’t even mine and which subsequently give you the impression there is a ‘problem’ that needs a “solution” or some such. Yes James I’ve decided to avoid using commas too so that you too can be forced to harness all your energy into reading something which could be presented far more eloquently.
Your powers of manipulation are to be lauded. Your disdain for every point i raise heard clearly through your reluctance to ever comment upon any of them, or at least in a way that isn’t slyly trying to turn them into ones of your own creation.
If there is a God, I hope he hears this:
Give James the strength needed to answer Barcelonic’s final question…
Surely we’re at least clear on your meaning of the following: “emotional reactions” Agreed?
In my last post with the dialogues I illustrated how “my friends” might have taken affront to some of your thoughts on Christians.
Would you please explain, given that you know I’m an atheist, how you’ve come to believe that it is I, and not my friends, who have experienced an “emotional reaction”?
EDIT: Just looking back at the two posts which preceded this one, which of them do you think is the more “irrational” and “emotional”?
Bar, I’m really not that interested in your attempts to reflect your guilts upon me.
And I don’t think anyone else really is either.
I explained Christianity’s stance on certain ethics and how those are “essential” to the foundation of what Christianity is.
If you didn’t understand them or didn’t like the way I speak, so be it.
If you continue to try to make it a distractive problem… there might be consequences.
Yes James all of what you say is true and completely non-fictitious. All hail James and bow in awe.
Does that satisfy you? Is that enough for you to leave me be and allow us civil folk to have an actual discussion?
I do recall saying this to you before, but here goes: if you’re not going to answer my questions and stay OT why bother?
Nobody believes the words you put in my mouth and they don’t see the image you paint of me, so what is the point?
Oh wait I forgot, sorry that was a question and you don’t answer those.
I’ll just end it here and wait for you to tell us all who I am and what I believe, as per usual. 
Your insistence is that you have no responsibility to consider others’ feelings when choosing your acts of speech. Does this extend to other acts as well? If so, what is responsibility, to you?
The long term stability and harmony option.
As I explained. The alternative being proposed yields unresolvable conflict and directed oppression.
By disallowing the retort of being offended by nonsensical concerns, an otherwise endless state of arguing, personal attacks, and fighting can be toned down into an actual discussion of the topic at hand.
And I never insisted that anyone has “no” responsibility at all. Don’t exaggerate. That might help too.
Lol, are you seriously proposing we put a ban on being offended rather than causing offence?
I do post on other forums you know, and each has a varying degree of tolerance for rudeness & hostility. There are many forums on which you would be the one being labelled the prude. For on those forums, you’d not be rude enough
On others you wouldn’t be tolerated at all.
But on ILP freedom of speech is balanced with standards of language & being respectful, and so on this forum you are welcome, so to speak.
And btw James, it is beginning to get very old now. You’ve made enough members see already that you are the one who tries to aggravate in logical discussion and not the other way around as you spend every other breath trying to illustrate.
An example (one of which can be found in nearly ANY post of James’): “Don’t exaggerate. That might help too.” - no true thinker in their right mind could consider this anything but disrespectful, and it clearly could have been expressed in a less insulting manner. But of course you do not see these do you James; you persist with the myth of persecution while you yourself are the persecutor.
“Delusion doesn’t even begin to cover this, methinks.”
Above is an example of one of my disrespectful comments. On ILP these have only ever been addressed to one member, and began initially after the first presumptuous insult was made about me whilst my points were ignored. Subequently there have been several more and it’s a source of great shame for me that I find myself trying to upset you. That said, we must fight for fairness & equality and I know this well.
I am not your enemy.
Tolerance of the religious beliefs (or lack thereof) of others is important, or respect cannot be shown.
With the ability to use words well comes massive responsibility - not everyone would be able to defend baseless accusations against them as succintly as you or I, irrespective of how rude, groundless, disrespectful or insulting they may be.
In the current politically correct environment, being offended is often used as a passive-aggressive way to control and manipulate people. It has the advantages of instantly discrediting an adversary and also avoiding critical questions which may be difficult to answer. Big win for the PC offendee. It pays to be a victim in a victim society.