the bible = the tree of the knowledge of good and evil () Jesus = the tree of life

[Homuncul]

"Not the shape but the feeling behind it. If we were to just be wrapped up in merely the shape of things, we would not be able to get to the feelings within".

 

The book is of no worth if you can't read, the content is of no meaning if you don't have your own understanding of every single word. Why then would one need Bible other than to convince himself of what he already knew?

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

The problem is that the same people who tout tolerance as the world's highest goal are not willing to be tolerant themselves.

 

Or perhaps they are intolerant of intolerance!

 

Amen to that!

 

Intolarence against intolerance = tolerance.

 

rccar328, if you weren't so busy banging you head against that so-called 'liberal wall' of yours, you'd see that... (and perhaps some of the other excellent points Skin made in his post)

[toms]

nice post skin, i agree with pretty much all you say (although i couldn't have said it as well or with as few typos).

 

I also tend to find that the more intolerant and sure a religious group are of their beliefs then the less credibility they have with me. It often seems like the original focus of the religion has been lost over time as more and more rules, restrictions and heirarchies have been introduced to define the religion.

 

Also, christianity kind of ends up getting bashed a bit because it is the dominant religion in the west and people feel it is big enough to take it.

 

As for the bible, those scholars who put it together and edited it had an absolutely huge influence on the whole religion from that point, and as far as i know they weren't divinely chosen in any way. So i guess you could say that it is a thrid party edited compilation of witness statements about events, and as such it is just as subject to bias as current news might be subject to bias due to the political feelings of the editors.

 

Oddly, i've come round to almost supporting Michael111: Jesus might well have had a good message, but by writing it down in the bible it has become almost tainted by human failings and i guess you could say that it has become the root of a lot of the evil and intollerances in the world. Who would have thought that.

[rccar328]

Originally posted by SkinWalker

What I find objectionable about christianity is that it, being the dominant cult in America, is intolerant of other religions and worldviews. I understand why, I just think that the christian voice needs to be countered as a balance in order to maintain religious freedom in the United States.

 

So are you saying that religious freedom in the United States is being restricted by Christianity? And if so, how? If anything, it sounds to me like you’re saying that it’s okay to restrict the freedom of Christians to practice their religion in the name of “tolerance.”

There is a growing trend in America to accept any religion as long as it is not Christianity. The truth is that nearly all religions are exclusive & intolerant of other religions and worldviews.

 

I'm skeptical of any group that touts itself as having the right or correct worldview.

 

Yet all the while, you tout yourself as having the right or correct worldview.

 

I do, however, believe that there are religions in the world that have more credibility than others. I base credibility level on the religion's compassion and tolerance for the beliefs of those that chose not to follow it.

 

I’ve said it before: Christianity is about personal choice. No matter what your opinion is on religious indoctrination (or brainwashing, as you term it), there is, in Christianity, always the choice to turn away from God, no matter whether a child’s parents force them to go to a particular church or school – Christianity is not about where you attend church or school, it is about what you believe.

 

As for credibility, if Christians were totally accepting and tolerant of other religions and worldviews, they would have no credibility. Period. According to your scale, a Christian with credibility is not a Christian at all (compassion + tolerance = acceptance). Being a Christian means believing in Christ and following His laws. This includes John 14:6 – “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

According to your scale of so-called “credibility,” a Christian would have to forsake his beliefs in order to be credible, in which case he would no longer be a Christian.

 

Try explaining Holy Communion to a West African: "first we eat the body of Christ then drink his blood.... Christ? Oh, that's the dude nailed to the trees over the altar."

 

Luke 22:19

And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me."

 

Here’s your explanation: the celebration of the Last Supper (Communion) is a ritual that Christians perform in order to remember the sacrifice the Christ made for us.

 

But christianity is intolerant.

 

I never said it wasn’t (*keep reading, I explain more later). What I was saying is that there is a very active trend today to accept other religions (which are at least as intolerant as Christianity), all the while condemning Christianity.

 

Or perhaps they are intolerant of intolerance!

 

That doesn’t make their intolerance right.

 

 

People write off Christianity as intolerant, and, for the most part, see it as not being credible (as you do), because it does not conform to the moral relativist standard so revered by the secular humanist agenda.

 

The simple truth is that people dislike (or in many cases hate) Christianity because it is “intolerant.” They don’t like Christianity because it applies a moral standard to our world that they are unwilling to at least try to live up to and therefore consider to be unfair. They see Christians as judgmental and intolerant simply due to the fact that we believe in a moral standard.

 

Here – I’m saying it: Christianity is an intolerant religion (*explained further below). However, a distinction must be made between intolerance and judgment.

 

There are many “Christians” out there who are all too willing to be judgmental of others. However, Christians are called to not be judgmental: “You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat.” (Romans 14:10)

 

Instead of being judgmental, we are called to look at people through the view of God’s laws, knowing that while we do not always live up to God’s standards, it is our mission to try to do so, and to help others to do so. Christianity is not judgmental; it is compassionate. Yes, we do believe that people who live in sin and do not repent will spend eternity in Hell. However, it is the calling of Christians to reach out to those people and share the Truth of Christ with them in order to save them from Hell.

 

There is a common misinterpretation of that compassion as a “forcing” of Christian morals – and in some cases, it is. There are many people who take this particular principle of Christianity too far. I, however, believe that when it comes to teaching Biblical morals and the right way to live, we can only go so far. We reach a certain point when each person must decide for themselves what to believe, and we must let them.

 

The question of whether Christianity is intolerant depends on the definition of tolerance. The way I think of tolerance is apparently an old definition (taken from my 1990 copy of Miriam Webster’s New World Dictionary): “to respect other’s beliefs, practices, etc. without sharing them.” Under this definition, Christianity is most definitely tolerant – the belief that people who refuse to accept Christ will go to hell does not mean that I cannot respect while not accepting their views.

 

Under a more modern definition, Christianity is definitely intolerant (taken from Miriam Webster’s Online Dictionary): “to suffer to be or to be done without prohibition, hindrance, or contradiction.”

 

Under this definition, though, we are all intolerant – if we disagree with someone’s views, should we give up our freedom of speech in the name of tolerance? I think not. The definition of tolerance is moving more and more toward acceptance. Belief in tolerance and belief in religious freedom are becoming mutually exclusive. For that matter, belief in tolerance and belief in disagreement of any kind (under this trend of changing definitions) are becoming mutually exclusive.

 

Due to these perceptions of “intolerance,” Christian views and practices are actively being restricted across our world. Students in American schools are often prohibited from engaging in voluntary prayer on campus. There was even a case in a school (I believe it was in Texas) where a school principle declared that anyone who mentioned the name “Jesus” or “God” at a graduation ceremony would be arrested, because it may offend someone. In other instances, students have been prohibited from engaging in voluntary student-led prayer on campus due to the mythical right not to be offended (and these are only a few of many examples).

 

Really, this entire argument over tolerance vs. intolerance is all about the mythical right not to be offended. This argument stems from both racism and political correctness. People see racism, sexism, and other types of discrimination that occurred in the past, combine that with the changing of what is considered acceptable vs. offensive language & practices, and assume that if they are offended by someone’s views, they have a right to take legal action. Now, I don’t know about you, but my copy of the Constitution contains no language stating that we have a right not to be offended. It does, however, say that all Americans have a right to freedom of speech and freedom of religion. That includes my right to openly and voluntarily pray wherever and whenever I wish. It includes my right to have and maintain a moral standard. It includes my right to share my religious views with others. And it includes your right to disagree with those views and morals.

 

The simple truth is that if “tolerance” really was the be-all and end-all of morality, we would all be imprisoned for offending someone’s moral sensibilities. Christianity is written off as intolerant because Christians believe in a higher moral standard, and we believe that there are consequences when people refuse to follow that moral standard. We believe that man does not have the authority to define moral right & wrong – that authority rests with God (mainly because when man defines right & wrong, things that are wrong become more and more right over time. It’s that ever-growing gray area all over again. If you choose not to believe that, fine. But the fact that Christians hold to a more strict moral standard than many people does not give anyone the right to persecute them or restrict their religious freedoms because of that moral standard.

[toms]

christianity is no more intollerant than any other religion, in fact it is probably more tollerant than some (although there is a very broad range in almost all religions).

 

However, christianity is the dominant religion in the western countries where most of the people on this discussion live. As such, it is both a bigger target and better able to withstand criticism than most other religions in the west.

 

I'm equally happy to criticise things about other religions, however

(a) I don't get exposed to the views of many other religions in a direct way

(b) These other religions don't have anywhere near as much power and influence in the western world (especially the US) as christianity and therefore I don't feel that they need to be held to account as much by it's citizens

© Most of us don't know as much about other religions that are based in other countries as we do about christianity.

(d) One has to be a lot more careful when critisising minority groups. *

 

*which isn't to say that you shouldn't, but you have to be aware that they start off in a much more weakened and distrusted position to start with.

 

So basically, christianity is bound to come in for more criticism in the west than most other religions, but it should be big enough and old enough to take it.

 

-----

 

Santa claus [from the other thread] is actually an interesting one as it is one of many cases of the cristian church adapting existing beliefs and cultures into it's religion. Heck, christmas is on the date of an old pagan festival instead of whatever the "proper" date should be. Valentines day is another example.

 

If the early church was this willing to incorporate existing festivals, events and cultural beliefs into it's own, then I don't think you can asume everything in the bible is "fact" and not influenced in some way by the beliefs and cultures around the writers and editors.

[rccar328]

christianity is no more intollerant than any other religion, in fact it is probably more tollerant than some

 

That's all I'm saying. While there are Christians who are very intolerant of others (sometimes even to the point of violence), Christianity, for the most part is tolerant of other lifestyles (according to the first definition I provided). We don't agree with those lifestyles, but, like I said, it gets to personal choice.

 

However, christianity is the dominant religion in the western countries where most of the people on this discussion live. As such, it is both a bigger target and better able to withstand criticism than most other religions in the west.

 

Criticism isn't the problem - I agree, Christianity can handle it. The problem is that there is a growing movement in America to restrict the religious freedoms of Christians in the name of tolerance or the supposed "separation of church and state" (which is not in the Constitution).

 

The problem that I have with this is that while people criticize Christianity for being intolerant, they at the same time raise up religions such as Islam, which is at the very least just as intolerant as Christianity.

 

This was especially apparent at Christmas time - in case after case, mainly at schools, teachers were told by administrators that they could not use traditional Christmas symbols (even Christmas trees in some cases) in an effort not to offend anyone, but at the same time they allowed Muslim symbols for the celebration of Ramadan and Jewish symbols for the celebration of Hanukkah (and celebrations of Kwanzaa).

 

I have no problem with celebrating Ramadan or Hanukkah & teaching our children about them, but why include these religions in the name of tolerance all the while excluding Christianity because somebody out there might find it offensive? If someone out there understands and/or can rationalize this duplicity, please explain it to me.

[Druid Bremen]

Did I just see a weird message at the back of a van? "Believe in Jesus or go to hell" Bah. Personal choice.

[Ray Jones]

"just dont read it" would be the answer..

 

although i easily can ignore such things it's the same as if i say jesus is a looner.

 

everyone has the same personal choice to ignore this.

[Druid Bremen]

Some people like to say that Jesus is the only salvation, and that if you do not join him, you go to hell. Somewhat like the Empire, yes?

(Right, maybe I'm biased, many religions are like that, but I just wanted to say it)

[taoistimmortal]

ZDAWG I would have responded in a more timely fashion but I had no oppurtunity. It seems you took me more severly than I intended, and that is probably my own fault. I didnt get my point across and I attacked you personally which is no way to get to the bottom of things, and as for your attempt to retaliate by accusing me of possessing a bias against christian's, I can honestly say that I do have a bias, but not the one you've accused me of.

 

My bias is a sense of curiosity, the feel of fascination, and occasionally outright horror, anger, or despair when confronted by the true potency of zeolots, people in which their belief or faith over ride their ability to perceive reality in a rational manner, or to hold any truth more important than their perception of the existence of God.

 

My last post was over the top; full of too many assumptions. I thought I had understood something in what you wrote that you in fact never intended. I will say though that if you know nothing about a thing you should refrain from saying things against it. But after all you were stating your opinion and I should not have taken the path I did in commenting on them, for that I apologize.

 

Hmmm.. I guess befouled is an extremely harsh word. Sorry about that one too

 

 

 

 

What is the path of redemption anyways. For you it may be Christ for me it can only be a differnt path.

[Elijah]

Originally posted by taoistimmortal

What is the path of redemption anyways. For you it may be Christ for me it can only be a differnt path.

I accept your appology, No offense taken and none intended for believing what I believe, however, if me being a christian offendes you, then for that I am guilty, but I cannot be sorry for believeing what I do.

 

I believe the bible when it says "I am the way, the truth and the life, and no one comes to the father except through me" -Jesus. I wont force you to believe that, but I can be at peace and at least know that I KNOW what I believe, and Im not in some endless search

[Homuncul]

I wont force you to believe that, but I can be at peace and at least know that I KNOW what I believe, and Im not in some endless search

 

That's the same as saying cat's can't fly becasue they can't. Your statement doesn't really state anything. And in case you didn't notice taoistimmortal believes also.

 

I believe the bible when it says "I am the way, the truth and the life, and no one comes to the father except through me" -Jesus.

 

Everyone believes. It's just some people believe that there is a good point in stop lying to themselves and some don't.

[Elijah]

Originally posted by Homuncul

That's the same as saying cat's can't fly becasue they can't. Your statement doesn't really state anything. And in case you didn't notice taoistimmortal believes also.

I stated I believe what I do, but Im not forcing anyone to agree with me.

 

Originally posted by Homuncul

Everyone believes. It's just some people believe that there is a good point in stop lying to themselves and some don't.

So once again we have people pulling off what they all accuse christians of doing "Your lying to yourself" or "Im right and your not" Hypocricy sucks, period.

[Master_Ginn]

Everyone believes. It's just some people believe that there is a good point in stop lying to themselves and some don't.

Who are you saying is lying to themselves? Are you, am I, who?

[lukeskywalker1]

Originally posted by Michael111

The bible

 

It is a book containing the knowledge of good and evil.

 

The forbidden fruit was not an apple. The fruit of a tree is also paper. And upon the pages of the bible is the knowledge of good and evil. The bible is poisoned with the knowledge of evil.

 

Any book that contains the knowledge of the devil is dangerous.

 

Ritualistic animal sacrifices, ceremonies incorporating the blood of dead animals, superstitious numbers, curses, evil spirits, dark prophecies... all in the bible.

 

Plotting, conspiracy, mass-murder, betrayal, genocide, slavery, suffering, wars... all in the bible.

 

Religion is the church of the poison mind. Minds poisoned by the knowledge of evil. People are deceived by religion.

 

The kingdom of God is within us all. Not within the pages of a book containing the knowledge of evil. I have recently shut it for good. I will not touch, nor taste of it again.

 

Because of Jesus Christ, I'm back in the land of the living. I've torn off my fig-leaf, and am returning to Eden. I am who God made me to be. The shame, guilt, and confusion is past-tense.

 

Thank You Jesus.

 

The Tree of Life = Jesus Christ

 

Love. Understanding. Tolerance. Acceptance.

Peace. Unity. Respect. Freedom. Unspeakable Joy.

 

Eat freely from this tree and be saved.

 

Love,

 

Michael111

 

 

Just because people did wrong things, doesnt mean the bible is to blame, or God. It doesnt mean the bible supports what they did.

 

All you need is Faith, not a book. I remember that throughout history Roman Catholics when they read from their Latin Bibles, translate it differently to manipulate the people, and of course the people believed them. You can truly get by with Faith alone.

 

Compare it with the dead sea scrolls, the original writings. The catholics dont follow the bible 100% anyways....

 

"separation of church and state" (which is not in the Constitution).

 

Cool, you noticed it too

 

 

I didnt read the whole thread, because i dont have much time left, and im in school.. so if i have repeated something... then ignore it....

[toms]

i don't know anything about the US constitution... but if seperation of the church and state isn't in the constitution then it damn well should be. You only have to look at a lot of the non-secular islamic states to see the trouble a country can get into when church and state become too closely linked.

 

I think the christianity thing is a bit like the reverse discrimination thing. When you have something that is way, way more widespread and powerful than anything else then it seems acceptable to treat it slightly differently. I can't see that people are saying that we should throw out all christianity for islam or anything like that. THey are just saying that we need to have less of a focus on christianity and more on other religions. This is just an attempt to add some balance, not saying that other religions are better.

 

With the number of attacks on minorities going up by 100s or percent since 9/11 i would support people who say there needs to be a bit more understanding and tollerance of minorities.

[rccar328]

i don't know anything about the US constitution... but if seperation of the church and state isn't in the constitution then it damn well should be. You only have to look at a lot of the non-secular islamic states to see the trouble a country can get into when church and state become too closely linked.

What the US Constitution says is that, "Congress shall make no law reguarding an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free excercise thereof." What that means is that the government cannot officially endorse a religion, require citizens to participate in a religion, or prohibit citizens from excercising their religion. I believe (I could be wrong about where it came from) that the phrase "separation of church and state" was taken from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson...and somehow people assumed that it was the Law of the Land.

 

I believe that the establishment clause is increasingly being misinterpreted to the point that its enforcement is violating the free excercise clause...I've read of several cases of this - prohibition of student-initiated, voluntary prayer in schools, the abolishment of religious (mainly Christian) clubs, and even one case where a school principle threatened to have arrested anyone who said "Jesus" or "God" at a graduation ceremony...whether in a speech or not.

[Michael111]

A book is not 'Holy'

 

If it contains the knowledge of evil, Satan, the devil, demons, dark prophecy, suffering, death, curses, superstitious numbers, conspiracy, the wholesale slaughter of innocent people, rituals involving the blood of murdered animals...

 

I say thank you Jesus for opening my eyes

 

the bible = the tree of the knowledge of good and evil

 

poison fruit

 

Love to all as we overcome the darkness together, and reach for the tree of life - Jesus Christ

 

Michael111

[Ray Jones]

nothing offensive ..

 

but does this actually made sense?

[rccar328]

but does this actually made sense?

Well...I started to understand what he was trying to say (didn't agree with it, but kinda understood) until he threw in the part about Jesus...

 

It sounds to me like he's saying, "Jesus good, Bible bad."

 

 

 

 

 

 

it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever...

[taoistimmortal]

the bible = the tree of the knowledge of good and evil

 

poison fruit

 

But it does make sense. What micheal111 is trying to say I believe is that the "devilry" contained in the bible taints the bible and therefore he has made the connection that the bible is the beginning of the knowledge of good and evil which in symbolic terms would make it the apple. Although I think he should be more forthcoming with his reason, namely why he thinks the good portions of the bible are tainted by the accounts of evil, the basic premise behind his assertion is very simple. Whether it is rational or logical is a different question.

 

Maybe what he is trying to say is shed the weight of the laws of the bible for we already know them anyways. They are in our blood so to speak. He sounds like an old time mystic in a way you know find the true path to Christ by shedding the superfluity that Christianity has acquired over the years, but then I can understand how and why most Christians would think that the true path to Jesus and God is through the bible.

 

Have you ever heard of the Albingensians or the Cathari; early Christian cults that were branded heretics by the Catholic church and so therefore stamped out. Maybe you know this quote by one of the generals given the task of massacreing the peoples of the Provence region in France. When asked by one of his commanders how they would know the heretics from the true believers he replied "Kill them all and let God sort them out"

 

A disclaimer: by writng that qoute I don't mean to imply anything about Christianity and hypocrisy. It's a quote that I have always found appallingly enjoyable.

 

I believe that the establishment clause is increasingly being misinterpreted to the point that its enforcement is violating the free excercise clause...

 

Your probably right. I personally see it as a legal tug of war between opposing views, and I can understand why it would irritate you because it restricts your freedom on the specific front it deals with. If I ever passed you on the lawn of state run institution rccar praying with a group of friends I would not be offended. But that is what it comes down to. Why do you think some people are offended to the point of legal action? You have touched on this a bit in your other posts in this thread. Truthfully it seems like dangerous waters to me. The swirling belligerance of hatred and anger swelling to the point of it's capacity. I don't think it will ever end. Tolerance and intolerance. The laws of God and the laws of man. Yes very dangerous waters indeed.

[ShadowTemplar]

A question often asked on these boards, I feel that it's time to give my .02€ on it:

 

The question in its full length is:

 

Why do people dislike Christianity more than e.g. Islam?

 

I think that the answer is that the people on these boards come mostly from countries with a long Christian history. Since these Christians have grown up on their 'home turf', so to speak, they have never had their beliefs challenged in any serious fashion during their childhood. Such lack of opposition means that they confuse fact and faith.

 

Z. B. some of the posters here have the bad habit of talking about Jesus's ressurection as though it was an actual, historical event. The actual historical events surrounding Jesus-called-Christ are vaguely documented at best. Mixing hard facts and personal interpretations is a bad habit. When this is pointed out, most of the people in question respond that 'that's what they believe'. Fine, but it's still an interpretation, and should be kept seperate from the supporting evidence.

 

By confusing faith and reality in their arguments, they seem to imply that their faith is true or that the facts are a matter of faith. Both of these implications are hugely offensive to the rational onlooker, because they discredit experiment and reason as the final arbitrators of conflict, and replace them with what is viewed from the outside as childish superstitions.

 

This effect is akin to the irritation felt when a hardline Marxist talks about a revolution somewhere in history as though it was part of the chain of events predicted by Marx, that would lead to Communism. The error here, of course, is that Marx' models are largely unproven, and thus cannot be used to present the historical facts of a given revolution. Marx' models must be considered seperately from the historical facts.

 

By contrast, a follower of some other religion (a Satanist, for example) will usually be much more skilled at debating properly (seperating facts and opinion, not losing control of her emotions, etc.), and more skilled in refuting the most common counter-arguments to her points, simply because she is in sharp training because she has had far more opportunities to swap views with someone she doesn't nessecarily agree with.

 

So where the followers of a religion have been raised on said religion's own turf, they come off as ignorant, brainwashed zealots compared to those who have been raised on foreign turf.

 

Of course these are general considerations. There is an astonishing variation within these norms.

 

Oh, and BTW I find that seperation between Church and State is a bad idea, because the Church cannot be effectively oppressed if it is independent. And if the Church is not oppressed, then the State is slave to the Church. There is no middle road.

[Master_Ginn]

[

By confusing faith and reality in their arguments, they seem to imply that their faith is true or that the facts are a matter of faith. Both of these implications are hugely offensive to the rational onlooker, because they discredit experiment and reason as the final arbitrators of conflict, and replace them with what is viewed from the outside as childish superstitions.

Then wouldn't everyone confuse faith as fact then? Not just christians on this thread. When you sit in a chair? It's not fact that it will hold you up, you have faith in that chair, that it will hold you up.

And wouldn't you say that to those that do believe in God and that Jesus rose from the dead would be offended just the same as a"rational" onlooker? with statements saying

Jesus is overated. Sure, the man may have had a few bright moments, but i can off hand name at least a couple dozen people more praise-worthy than he

Wouldn't you say your faith in this statement would be offensive to christians?

[ET Warrior]

Originally posted by Feanaro

When you sit in a chair? It's not fact that it will hold you up, you have faith in that chair, that it will hold you up.

 

Well, it actually is a fact. You know that when you sit down your body will exert a normal force on the chair and because of Newton's third law, that chair will exert the same normal force back onto you.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by Feanaro

Then wouldn't everyone confuse faith as fact then? Not just christians on this thread. When you sit in a chair? It's not fact that it will hold you up, you have faith in that chair, that it will hold you up.

 

There are facts and there are theories (I think Gould first said this). A fact isn't necessarily some stepping stone to a theory or vice versa. They can exist independently from each other. When Einstein reworked some of Newton's theories of gravity to come up with a better one, apples didn't start floating in mid-fall and cows didn't begin flying. Gravity is a fact. Yet how we explain gravity is a theory.

 

That the chair will support a person is a fact based on observable evidence. One observes more chairs in a particular configuration of a particular construction that will support than will not. Therefore, it is wise to conclude that the probabilities that a chair that meets an individual's observed/learned criteria are worth the risk to sit down.

 

Religion doesn't meet those criteria. Particularly the bible, if you note the parallels to Near Eastern mythology that I outlined in the Bible: myth or truth thread.

 

Jesus Christ, in particular, doesn't meet those criteria for the reasons I mentioned elswhere (perhaps it was this thread) and ShadowTemplar mentioned above.

 

Originally posted by Feanaro

And wouldn't you say that to those that do believe in God and that Jesus rose from the dead would be offended just the same as a"rational" onlooker?

 

Perhaps. But there are some with whom it is one's duty to offend if it applies to critical reasoning and progress. Consideration of the sensibilities of others shouldn't be the reason for perpetuating ignorance as long as the remarks are not ad hominem in nature.