https://m.lemmy.world/posts/lemmy.world/c/world/comments/4145765

The point of this research is that renewable are cheaper. So why would we invest our money in the more extensive option?

deleted by creator

Maybe they wanted to prove that the criticism was justified.

This is signaling exactly the wrong message to the violent protesters. They see “if we throw a tantrum they do what we want” it will lead to more violent protest.

The opposite reaction would be appropriate. Tell tgem “If you continue to be violent we will mock your prophet and your book even more”. If those people really listen to the Quran this should stop the violence.

During Mohammeds time the Muslims would mock the gods of the polytheists. When the polytheists finally had enough and threatened to mock Islam if they don’t stop, “Allah” revealed

Surah 6:108

˹O believers!˺ Do not insult what they invoke besides Allah or they will insult Allah spitefully out of ignorance. This is how We have made each people’s deeds appealing to them. Then to their Lord is their return, and He will inform them of what they used to do.

An appropriate response to their riots:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=DC8oD14gTsU

You could get a new garage door remote. The code should be as little switches on the inside of the old remote.

That is actually very “Christianly”. Jesus argued a lot. For example with the pharisees where they where wrong, etc.

OK I think I now understand your comment better. I overlooked the quotes. Sorry.

I am new here so this is a little confusing for me. In the Beehaw post you linked someone writes that they see only lemmy.world posts that where synced before the defederation. But lemmy.world users should still see the posts of Beehaw since lemmy.world has not defederated from Beehaw only the other way round, isn’t it?

Beehaw seem to have refederated lemmy.world and sh.itjust.works

https://lemmy.world/post/980052

you’ll never, ever hear me say something as ridiculous as “The Bible Teaches

But you did exactly that, you just worded it a little differently. You implied that you know what the Bible teaches and it is quote “fine”.

But isn’t religion also one of the protected classes? I would only state what i think my religion teaches I would not discriminate or cancel anyone and let other opinions stand. But when someone tries to cancel me for stating what i think my religion teaches wouldn’t they discriminate against me because of my religion?

By “society” you mean the majority of people? And when the majority of people thinks something is wrong that gives them the right to cancel out a minority opinion just by calling it “hate”?

What I think the Bible teaches based on my own historical-traditional interpretation” is fine.

Whith this you are implying that you think your interpretation of the Bible is the right interpretation.

Whenever someone says, “the Bible teaches,” it’s a major red flag to me.

Is it only a red flag when others say they know what the Bible teaches or also when you say it?

If someone comes to AskAChristian and asks what does your religion teach about xyz would I not be allowed to answer because the answer could be interpreted as harassment of a protected class?

Who defines what is a “protected class”?

What do you understand as “tolerant”? Does it have to be always affirming? Say, I state that a certain behavior is not good. You disagree. I tolerate your opinion even though I disagree. But you state that my opinion is hateful and want it to be banned. Who of us is “tolerant”?

Your link has a very shallow definition of the “No true Scotsman” fallacy.

A better definition is on Wikipedia:

No true Scotsman, or appeal to purity, is an informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect their generalized statement from a falsifying counterexample by excluding the counterexample improperly. Rather than abandoning the falsified universal generalization or providing evidence that would disqualify the falsifying counterexample, a slightly modified generalization is constructed ad-hoc to definitionally exclude the undesirable specific case and similar counterexamples by appeal to rhetoric.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

But I can argue that the definition of Cristian comes from the behavior and teaching of Jesus and the new testament and thus excludes bigotry hate and racism.

Also, telling people that they will be tortured for etwrnity (hell) […] is ultimately bigoted and hateful.

Unless that is really true. Then it would be unloving to not warn people.

I’m all for difficult questions. I’m asking if people would be silenced and banned for stating what the Bible teaches.