Persecuted Christians In America!

[BubberMiley]

It's already been explained....backtrack and read my posts.

Just like how the morning after pill "take" was already explained.

[betsy]

Just like how the morning after pill "take" was already explained.

Yes. Clearly so, in Abortion Revisited.

If you mean my take on it - as a Christian - my position is also explained in Abortion on Christian Grounds. Anyway, since this is the second or third time you brought this up, what exactly is your question as to the morning pill?

Edited August 11, 2012 by betsy

[BubberMiley]

Anyway, since this is the second or third time you brought this up, what exactly is your question as to the morning pill?

Why would someone who is against abortion be in favour of an abortion pill?

[betsy]

Why would someone who is against abortion be in favour of an abortion pill?

Reply moved to Abortion on Christian Grounds.

Edited August 11, 2012 by betsy

[kimmy]

Btw, this is the first time I've heard of Matt Epling. I tried googling what happened to him....all I got are loose report that he was given the anti-gay hazing by some seniors in school - or something like that.

How does this connect with Christians? Can anyone cite an article about his bullying?

There's nothing to indicate his suicide was directly related to Christians.

It was what happened afterward that related to Christians.

Michigan, lagging behind other states in addressing bullying, decided to enact legislation on the issue. And that's where the Family Research Council got involved. Family Research Council are a Christian group, one of the groups that Dan Cathy's fried chicken money generously supports. Family Research Council hired lobbyists to convince the majority Republicans in Michigan's senate that the First Amendment Rights of Christians were under attack, and that Christian kids needed to have the right to torment gay kids protected by law.

Legal experts said that the exemptions in Michigan's law made it literally worse than having no law at all, but instead, Republican lawmakers patted themselves on the back because they were "protecting religious freedom."

Then this happened:

And after that speech went viral on the internet, criticism of the religious exemptions was so fierce that Michigan's House Republicans completely dropped the religious exemptions from the law.

-k

[kimmy]

Charles Anthony better put me in the cooler because the post that I just erased in place of this one would have definitely warranted it.

I almost did the same... a couple of hilarious posts and a considerable quantity of Buffalo Trace helped me remember that Betsy should be a target of laughter, not anger.

-k

[kimmy]

Because, hey, seeing some Christian tattooed neo-Nazi freak gun down a bunch of Sikh's must be the fault of the "atheists [who] hate god" rather than the Christian right who justify such violence by blaming atheists, gays, satanists and other boogeymen.

Funny, that was the reaction after that scumbag shot up the Batman movie too. "Tell people that they are just animals, and they will act like animals." "This is what happens when people reject God." etc etc.

And then it turned out that the shooter was a Christian-raised church goer, and we didn't hear that stuff anymore.

-k

[kimmy]

Btw...

Fighting to re-define the word of marriage - which one knows has deep religious significance to certain groups - is bullying. It could've resulted in a harmonious ending if gays coined their own term for union.

Funny that you're so adamantly against the idea that the word "marriage" be redefined, yet you think nothing of redefining "bully" to suit your argument. I can't tell whether you're shamelessly dishonest, or too dense to recognize it.

So why is it so important for gays to re-define the term marriage? If their concern is to enjoy the same benefits as married heterosexual couples do....they could've gained those without having to re-define marriage.

Your team is adamantly against the idea that gay couples should have the same benefits as heterosexuals.

Presidential Candidate Romney affirms that if he wins, he might grant homosexuals hospital visitation rights, but that's about it.

-k

[CANADIEN]

Btw...

Fighting to re-define the word of marriage - which one knows has deep religious significance to certain groups - is bullying. It could've resulted in a harmonious ending if gays coined their own term for union.

So why is it so important for gays to re-define the term marriage? If their concern is to enjoy the same benefits as married heterosexual couples do....they could've gained those without having to re-define marriage.

Like in a sandbox. A bully grabs the toy another child has, even though he can have other toys available.

Bullying, right? As much bullying as when those pesky women were fighting for the right to vote.

Now, just that we are clear here. As a Christian,, i consider that marriage i between a man and a woman. It,s just that somehow i don't feel bullied, or threatened, or denied my freedom of thought and religion because others think otherwise and the the Government thinks otherwise.

And btw, let's not fool ourselves here. A lot of the most adamant oponents of same-sex marriage don't want to hear talks of any kind of civil union status either.

Edited August 12, 2012 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

You've got a very narrow view of "bullying." You don't have to buy yourself a dictionary....I'll share this with you, so listen up Kimmy: In a nutshell....

Bullying 101 for Kimmy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullying

Thanks for demonstrating that, no matter how you put it, fighting to re-define marriage is not bullying. Unless those who fought to re-define the legal definition of marriage to include multiracial couples were bullies ;-)

[CANADIEN]

I'll ignore the name-calling, Kimmy....as I already know you too well to understand that that's how you react whenever you realise your argument doesn't have a leg to stand on.

I see the all-too-familiar "ingratiating tone" as your prepping the groundwork - hoping for a gang-bang perhaps?

Nope. you won't ignore the name-calling. You will keep engaging in it when ever it suits you, along with the "ingratiationg tone". And I'll keep find it amuzing.

[CANADIEN]

And if you stand your ground and don't agree with them - they want you to shut up. They try to take away your rights. They try to make you "pay" for it. They persecute you.

And that's what's happened in the example of Chick Fil A.

Just that I am sure here, are you talking about calls for boycotts of and sit-ins at chick-Fil-A? Because then, logic would dictate that you denounce the ahem persecution of Starbuck by the National Organization for Marriage.

link

Me, I do not consider either to be persecution.

Edited August 12, 2012 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

What to you is the demonstration of love and compassion? Donations to the food bank? Sponsor a child?

Nothing wrong with those.

Nothing wrong with those? NOTHING WRONG WHITH THOSE? "For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me". These are not things that are nice to do. Treating others like we would treat God itself is a fundamental part of what we are called to be as Christian.

But I think Christians who go out of their way to keep on hammering the same message (even when they are maligned and reviled in the process - in some cases, even persecuted!), are demonstrating the act of love and compasssion.....when they want to show the world that all these earthly sufferings are nothing when you consider the eternal life that awaits. That the door is open to everyone, the opportunity is there....even for those who've committed the most atrocious of all sins.

Sorry, but false victimhood is not love and it is not compassion.

[betsy]

Just that I am sure here, are you talking about calls for boycotts of and sit-ins at chick-Fil-A? Because then, logic would dictate that you denounce the ahem persecution of Starbuck by the National Organization for Marriage.

link

Me, I do not consider either to be persecution.

let's get this straight. Calling for boycott and sit-ins are not exactly the same.

A sit-in is a tactical non-violent civil protest. A group enters a business or public place, remain seated until they are forcibly removed.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/546774/sit-in

A sit-in is a direct action. It is an actual disruption of the business. Chick Fil A is a restaurant. Protesters coming in to sit not only occupy spaces meant for paying customers, but their action directly intimidates customers who might want to eat at the place. Chick Fil A is forcibly made to lose sales!

Whereas a call for boycott...is just that. A call to boycott an establishment. People can either participate in that boycott or not. There is no force involved.

I wouldn't consider calling to boycott as bullying. It's not a direct action against the establishment. It would've been different if gay marriage supporters called for a boycott on Chick Fil A.

[betsy]

Nothing wrong with those? NOTHING WRONG WHITH THOSE? "For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me". These are not things that are nice to do. Treating others like we would treat God itself is a fundamental part of what we are called to be as Christian.

Sorry, but false victimhood is not love and it is not compassion.

Oh the ways of relativists....

Moral relativism and the Bible don't go together. In fact, they tend to go the opposite way.

[betsy]

Bullying, right? As much bullying as when those pesky women were fighting for the right to vote.

Now, just that we are clear here. As a Christian,, i consider that marriage i between a man and a woman. It,s just that somehow i don't feel bullied, or threatened, or denied my freedom of thought and religion because others think otherwise and the the Government thinks otherwise.

If they think otherwise, that's one thing.....but forcing others to agree with their way of thinking is another.

And btw, let's not fool ourselves here. A lot of the most adamant oponents of same-sex marriage don't want to hear talks of any kind of civil union status either.

So what? They don't want to hear any talks of any kind of civil union? Ignore them. Let the civil government decide.

[CANADIEN]

let's get this straight. Calling for boycott and sit-ins are not exactly the same.

A sit-in is a tactical non-violent civil protest. A group enters a business or public place, remain seated until they are forcibly removed.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/546774/sit-in

Mark the day. You get something right... almost. But then, we get this.

A sit-in is a direct action. It is an actual disruption of the business. Chick Fil A is a restaurant. Protesters coming in to sit not only occupy spaces meant for paying customers, but their action directly intimidates customers who might want to eat at the place. Chick Fil A is forcibly made to lose sales!

Whereas a call for boycott...is just that. A call to boycott an establishment. People can either participate in that boycott or not. There is no force involved.

I wouldn't consider calling to boycott as bullying. It's not a direct action against the establishment. It would've been different if gay marriage supporters called for a boycott on Chick Fil A.

I didn't realize that a successful boycott was not disruptive to a business. Thanks for enlightening me.... And for entertaining me with the laughable notion that the targets of a sit-in are forcibly made to lose sales or that a peaceful process intimidates people.

On the other end, perhaps you are right. Thinking of it, the first sits-in were staged by opponents of segregations. What a bunch of bullies.

[CANADIEN]

If they think otherwise, that's one thing.....but forcing others to agree with their way of thinking is another.

You mean like... Using a condescending tone, adopting an hollier-than-thou attitude, spreading false claims of persecution, harping the same non-sense again and again, misrepresentating others opinions and ocasionnaly lying about them?

[CANADIEN]

Oh the ways of relativists....

Moral relativism and the Bible don't go together. In fact, they tend to go the opposite way.

I didn't know that Jesus' command to treat the poor, the hungry, the foreigner like if they were Him was relatvist. Thanks once again to enlighten me.

AS for the fact that I have a hard time considering false victimhood a form of love and compassion - nothing relativist in that. And, needless to point out, such falsehood is contrary to the call tob e witness to the Truth.

[kimmy]

Oh the ways of relativists....

Moral relativism and the Bible don't go together. In fact, they tend to go the opposite way.

If moral relativism such a bad thing, why is it that we do not drag people to town square and smash their heads in with rocks for breaking God's Law, as the Old Testament commands?

-k

[CANADIEN]

If moral relativism such a bad thing, why is it that we do not drag people to town square and smash their heads in with rocks for breaking God's Law, as the Old Testament commands?

-k

The real issue is not whether or not moral relativism is a bad thing - I for one think it is a weak substitute for a belief certain things are right and other are wrong. It's just thatI find... shall we say... interesting that some people think that one of Jesus' key teachings is merely "not a wrong thing to do". That I call relativism. Along with false victimhood.

[cybercoma]

If moral relativism such a bad thing, why is it that we do not drag people to town square and smash their heads in with rocks for breaking God's Law, as the Old Testament commands?

-k

Moral relativism is bad because it means nothing can be absolutely immoral. It's all a matter of perspective. I don't know if I necessarily agree with that, as it's a pretty nihilistic thought.

[Guest American Woman]

Hear, hear....your kind of perspective might be at the bottom of all this rash of bullying we see happening nowadays.

You're saying that it's okay to grab a toy from a child if that victim is not left without a toy.

I said no such thing.

This is what I did say:

When the bully in the sandbox grabs the toy another child has, that child is left without a toy. What are YOU left without by gays marrying? How is that taking anything away from you?

On the other hand, if the kid with the toy tells the other kid that he can't have one of his own, who is the bully?

Do tell - what part of that is saying it's ok to grab a toy from a victim?

And when you're done explaining how you came up with your off the wall accusation, how about answering the questions? How does gay marriage take anything away from you? Will you and your husband be less married? Have less of a marriage? Be more unhappy?

In other words - what are gays taking away from you? What are they "grabbing" from you?

And you seem to think that "SHARING..." is an absolute must. That all someone has to do is walk up to a child with several toys and say the magic word, "please," that the other child is obligated to share his toys with the "pleasee."

I'm not asking you to share your marriage with gays. Each and every gay couple will have their very own marriage.

I've seen how this "sharing..." has been abused when I had a daycare.....that the "pleasee" develops a sense of entitlement, thinking all he has to do is ask politely and it shall be granted. I've seen children in deep solitary play with several toys (using them in their imaginative play), then another child butts in and say, "you have to share..."

I can guarantee you that no gay married couples will be butting into your marriage, asking you to share your marriage with them.

And it's not because there weren't any other toys to play with. It's just simply because at that moment, little mr pleasee wants that particular toy.

If they had their very own toy just like that particular toy, there wouldn't be any problem, right? But you want to deny the toy to the child who would like one, too. Not because it would leave the first child without the toy, he/she would still have their toy, but simply because you think only the first child should be allowed to have that toy.

They don't seem to grasp the meaning of, "wait for your turn." Or, "first come, first served."

O.M.G. They don't want the other child's toy. They want one of their own. You would deny them that.

Perhaps we should try that approach in the real world. Anyone knows the phone # of the Gates and the Trumps? I need a few other things...perhaps if I say, "please...."

Everyone has the right to own what the Gates and Trumps own. I can't believe you actually think this is an argument against allowing gays to marry - that you believe gays are the ones who are the selfish bullies. It boggles the mind.

[CANADIEN]

I said no such thing.

This is what I did say:

When the bully in the sandbox grabs the toy another child has, that child is left without a toy. What are YOU left without by gays marrying? How is that taking anything away from you?

On the other hand, if the kid with the toy tells the other kid that he can't have one of his own, who is the bully?

Do tell - what part of that is saying it's ok to grab a toy from a victim?

And when you're done explaining how you came up with your off the wall accusation, how about answering the questions? How does gay marriage take anything away from you? Will you and your husband be less married? Have less of a marriage? Be more unhappy?

In other words - what are gays taking away from you? What are they "grabbing" from you?

I'm not asking you to share your marriage with gays. Each and every gay couple will have their very own marriage.

I can guarantee you that no gay married couples will be butting into your marriage, asking you to share your marriage with them.

If they had their very own toy just like that particular toy, there wouldn't be any problem, right? But you want to deny the toy to the child who would like one, too. Not because it would leave the first child without the toy, he/she would still have their toy, but simply because you think only the first child should be allowed to have that toy.

O.M.G. They don't want the other child's toy. They want one of their own. You would deny them that.

Everyone has the right to own what the Gates and Trumps own. I can't believe you actually think this is an argument against allowing gays to marry - that you believe gays are the ones who are the selfish bullies. It boggles the mind.

As someone who believes marriage is, and should be, between a man and a woman, I am still trying to figure out what exactly SSM is allegedly taking from me or from any married heterosexual couple. Perhaps you can tell me, because neither Betsy or anybody else making that claim can back it up.

Edited August 13, 2012 by CANADIEN

[betsy]

I'm not going to split hair over your understanding of what bullying means. If you think it's not bullying....then you don't think it's bullying. I'm not going to force you to agree with me.

I know Kimmy is confused about bullying. She is the classic example of a relativist. Her "truth" is whatever she wants it to be.

Edited August 13, 2012 by betsy