Persecuted Christians In America!

[CANADIEN]

I would understand the arguments to support same sex marriage coming from non-believers....but coming from another christian who insist to argue in support of it is really jaw-dropping (...) I am not lying about you.

Oh yes you do lie about me... again, when claiming that I support something (same-sex marriage) when I have said clearly, time and time again, that to me marriage is between one man and one woman, period.

The traditional meaning - as God wanted it - is gone! And it is now being shared with a union that is offensive to God! You don't see that?

I see that some people call marriage something that is not a marriage, and that civil law call marriage something that is not a marriage. I also see, and know, that God still knows what a real marriage is and isn't. Real marriage will remain real marriage as long as God wills it so.

You may think that you're not "handing it over"....

I am not.

but you are arguing for it, in support of it.

The same lie again.

I'm basing it on your replies to my posts.

Then learn to read.

[betsy]

Typical betsy...

Some people: 2+2 = 4

betsy: here you go again, saying that 2+2=5 when everyone knows that 2+2=7; you are this bad thing and that bad thing and I am laughing at you

Some people: 2+2=4 and you are a false witness

betsy: the Bible proves that I am a true witness and that 2+2=7... nah nah nah nah nah

On a more serious note... Insulting people, mocking people, belittling people, saying falsehoods about people (also known as lying) is bad enough, and I will not claim I am not guilty of it on occasions. But as a Christian, I have the basic decency, and respect for God and His word, not to go wrapping myself in the Bible and play the martyr whenever my targets react.

Well Canadien I have to break my word and respond to you.

Where did I say any falsehoods? Maybe I've not realize that....so cite.

[betsy]

Canadien:

I have the basic decency, and respect for God and His word, not to go wrapping myself in the Bible.

What do you mean by "wrapping yourself in the Bible?" Explain.

[betsy]

Oh yes you do lie about me... again, when claiming that I support something (same-sex marriage) when I have said clearly, time and time again, that to me marriage is between one man and one woman, period.

Give the link. More likely you've taken my statement out of context. Or that I was responding or reacting to your comment. Be specific. Link please.

[CANADIEN]

What do you mean by "wrapping yourself in the Bible?" Explain.

I am talking about quoting the Bible in an effort to pass the mocking, belittling and lying about others as bearing witness to the Word. Sorry, won't work.

[CANADIEN]

Give the link. More likely you've taken my statement out of context. Or that I was responding or reacting to your comment. Be specific. Link please.

With pleasure.

Now, just that we are clear here. As a Christian,, i consider that marriage i between a man and a woman.

As someone who believes marriage is, and should be, between a man and a woman (...)

We are not talking here about the FACT that marriage was instituted by God, as the union of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of others, so that they would sanctify each other and provide the best environemnt to bring life. (...) I have said clearly I believe marriage is between man and woman.

I for one prefer saying things as I see them, that a marriage is between a man and a woman and that calling anything else a marriage doesn't make it so, even if some were to call me a bigot for it.

I am sure I missed a few similar statements. And I will spare everyone the various quotes by you claiming that I support same-sex marriage. Which is a falsehood... and a lie... unless, of course, you are just plain unable to read English.

[Black Dog]

Oh. That "witness."

Strange. I could've sworn "witnessing" directly to you would be the last thing you'd want me or anyone to do.....and yet Kimmy's so quick to invoke it, along with her supporters.

I witnessed Kimmy's "lightheartedness" (to put it kindly) on the issue of bullying when it came to a Christian girl. Even now as we speak, there is no remorse over that coldblooded comment she's made.

Blackdog and Dre talks about coherence and logic, but it isn't I who's incoherent and illogical.

How ironic that those are the very things I was pointing out - among other things - about Kimmy.

Perhaps they don't connect the dots too....or maybe they missed this part of the discussion. So let me bring up the posts again. All I did was turn the table around and let her be on the other's shoes.

All you are doing here is demonstrating your ignorance of what constitutes bullying. If I slam the door in a Jehovah's Witness's face after they wake me up on a Saturday morning I'm not bullying them. Just the same if some other brainwashed little tool comes up to me and starts blathering about how I should get to know her invisible friends, I'll tell her what for. Not bullying.

But I'm not witnessing to you guys. I've done that already. You've already been told about it all. You're on your own now.

WTF does that mean?

I'm just engaging in discussions now with you all - and if my beliefs and faith comes through, well it can't be helped. After all, we're in the heading under RELIGION, isn't it? And we're discussing Persecuted CHRISTIANS, aren't we?

We're discussing absurd claims of persecution by people who don't understand the first thing about what it means to be persecuted or bullied.

[Black Dog]

I'm not soliciting for your stamps of "okays." I cannot. Especially after you've demonstrated repeatedly your mocks and contempt for my God.

I have no more contempt for your God than I do Martians, leprechauns, unicorns and other fictional creatures. For you and your ilk, however, my contempt knows no bounds.

[betsy]

I am talking about quoting the Bible in an effort to pass the mocking, belittling and lying about others as bearing witness to the Word. Sorry, won't work.

Well I can't do anything if that's how you want to see it. You prefer to see only what you want to see, I suppose. That's your opinion. I've got mine, too.

[betsy]

With pleasure.

I am sure I missed a few similar statements. And I will spare everyone the various quotes by you claiming that I support same-sex marriage. Which is a falsehood... and a lie... unless, of course, you are just plain unable to read English.

Those are your statements! I want you to give the link where you said I lied about your position in same-sex marriage. I want to go and have a look, and see, why - if indeed I said those - came to that conclusion!

Edited August 22, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

I'll ignore all the troll antics and just respond to this:

Well, if you're prepared to accept that AFA and FRC are "radical", then we're getting somewhere.

I didn't say AFA and FRC are radicals. I'm saying that guy Akin is radical, or maybe even misinformed or a loose canon.

Let me make it clear though that what I mean by radical, is his comment regarding rape/pregnancy.

It's the first time I've heard someone say rape may inhibit conception because of the trauma or something like that.

When you say AFA or FRC, you're tarnishing everyone with the same brush, including its members who may not support some of the views of the officers or Akin, but support most, if not all of the Christian values being promoted by the organizations.

So, why do Dan Cathy and so many Christians support radical groups like AFA and FRC?

Let me guess. Because they share the same Christian values?

It's not like these are obscure little groups. AFA has almost 200 radio stations, hundreds of employees, hundreds of thousands of subscribers, and an annual budget in the tens of millions. FRC is an arm of "Focus on the Family" which is far larger than AFA. Maybe Christian extremism is more powerful in America than some would like to admit.

So? You guys got most of the mainstream media on your side! You also have Hollywood! Without those you think there'll be an open season on unborn babies today?

Here's more of AFA mouthpiece Bryan Fischer, explaining how Rep. Akin is the real victim.

"Akin is the real victim of forcible... assault."

"Akin is the one getting gang... tackled."

You can tell he was just itching to say "rape", but resisted because he knew what kind of trouble he'd get in if he did. -k

What I see is a loose canon made a mistake - to which he apologised, according to the news today - and the organizations rallied around him when everybody started demanding that he step down.

I saw the clip on his apology for the remark. He made it clear though that he is not apologising for his pro-life stance....to which I say, bravo.

So he made a mistake - perhaps that's what he really thinks about pregnancy by rape, who knows - but it's not politically correct to say such things! Since he's in politics, he should know better.

It's just a stupid remark, and he apologised for it.

If this isn't election time in the USA, this wouldn't get much traction. But of course, it's being politicized.

Edited August 22, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

All you are doing here is demonstrating your ignorance of what constitutes bullying. If I slam the door in a Jehovah's Witness's face after they wake me up on a Saturday morning I'm not bullying them. Just the same if some other brainwashed little tool comes up to me and starts blathering about how I should get to know her invisible friends, I'll tell her what for. Not bullying.

Well obviously you're not getting it! You can't see the comparison between these two scenarios.

Kimmy's reply towards a group of adults posting fantasies of doing violence to a little Christian girl:

Good grief. I don't think a few comments about slapping her qualify as "vicious savagery".

If little Rachel's parents read those comments, perhaps they'll think twice about having her roll up on complete strangers with advice about how to live.-k

BETSY's reply to Kimmy raising the victim-card that her kid brother was allegedly bullied:

What did you say about Rachel's parents again? Well what about if someone told you, "perhaps that should teach your kid brother to stand up and face the bullies instead of being a little sissy running to his sister

She sure knows the pain of having a kid brother bullied, yet she herself was not only insensitive towards the parents of the Christian girl, but she also justified the bullying.

Anyway, my mistake. I should've known what to expect from you - it'll be another going around in circles with you - like a dog running around chasing its own tail.

So I'll just put you on ignore. Bye-bye Black Dog. Arf revoir.

Edited August 22, 2012 by betsy

[CANADIEN]

Those are your statements! I want you to give the link where you said I lied about your position in same-sex marriage. I want to go and have a look, and see, why - if indeed I said those - came to that conclusion!

That's the best you can do? "show me where you told me I lied about you"? Frankly. You know what I believe a marriage is, and you know you claimed I support SSM even though it is clear I won't even call it a marriage. You want to make a fool of yourself, you don't need m'y help for that.

[kimmy]

I didn't say AFA and FRC are radicals. I'm saying that guy Akin is radical, or maybe even misinformed or a loose canon.

If what Todd Akin said makes him a radical, and AFA and FRC are saying "yeah! he's exactly right!" even after he withdrew the remark, how can they be any less radical than him?

Let me make it clear though that what I mean by radical, is his comment regarding rape/pregnancy.

It's the first time I've heard someone say rape may inhibit conception because of the trauma or something like that.

It's far from the first time somebody has said it. The pro-life movement has been propagating this lie for a long time.

When Todd Akin said "he heard it from a doctor", he was probably referring to a prominent pro-life leader named Dr John Wilkes, who has been saying this for years.

Dr Wilkes' support for this theory comes from another famous doctor, Dr Josef Mengele. The Nazis conducted "experiments" in which women were herded into the gas chambers and a fake gas was pumped in. After the pretend execution, the Nazis discovered that some of the womens' menstrual cycles were disrupted. That's not even close to suggesting that extreme trauma is an effective contraceptive, mind you, but it's the origin of this theory.

When you say AFA or FRC, you're tarnishing everyone with the same brush, including its members who may not support some of the views of the officers or Akin, but support most, if not all of the Christian values being promoted by the organizations.

Christian values like "God hates fags".

Let me guess. Because they share the same Christian values?

Beats me. I'm at a loss.

So? You guys got most of the mainstream media on your side! You also have Hollywood! Without those you think there'll be an open season on unborn babies today?

What I see is a loose canon made a mistake - to which he apologised, according to the news today - and the organizations rallied around him when everybody started demanding that he step down.

Considering he has co-authored bills that say more or less the same thing, it makes it hard to believe this was just a slip of the tongue.

I saw the clip on his apology for the remark. He made it clear though that he is not apologising for his pro-life stance....to which I say, bravo.

So he made a mistake - perhaps that's what he really thinks about pregnancy by rape, who knows - but it's not politically correct to say such things! Since he's in politics, he should know better.

It's just a stupid remark, and he apologised for it.

I heard him apologize for using the word "legitimate". "Because rape is never ever legitimate!" Mighty big of him.

I did not, however, hear him apologize for attempting to lie to the people by passing off this flat out false notion as a fact.

Nor did I hear him apologize for the implication that it's not a real rape unless the victim has been beaten so badly that she can't conceive.

Nor did I hear him apologize for in essence saying that every woman who has sought an abortion after a rape is a liar.

I'm pretty unimpressed by the apology.

If this isn't election time in the USA, this wouldn't get much traction. But of course, it's being politicized.

It's being politicized because he's running for political office. As a US Senator he would be in a position to apply his profound stupidity to laws that affect all Americans.

-k

[CANADIEN]

I did not, however, hear him apologize for attempting to lie to the people by passing off this flat out false notion as a fact.

Actually he is now claiming that he was misinformed. In other words, he read that a woman's body has the capacity to shut itself to prevent pregnacy if she is raped, and he just accepted the idea. An idea that any people with common sense would laugh at or welcome with a yawn if said in any non-political context.

In other words, Akin's excuse is that he's a complete moron.

[betsy]

That's the best you can do? "show me where you told me I lied about you"? Frankly. You know what I believe a marriage is, and you know you claimed I support SSM even though it is clear I won't even call it a marriage. You want to make a fool of yourself, you don't need m'y help for that.

If I had said that you support SSM, there has to be a reason why I came to that conclusion. After all, I wouldn't just come out right and say, "Canadien supports SSM" based on nothing, would I?

Perhaps you had said convoluted statements - in your feeble way to try to navigate between political correctness and your church doctrines (I don't even remember what church you belong to) - which should only prove to you that there is no such thing as trying to reconcile what is commanded in the Bible with what is desired by non-believers!

Similarly, I also thought you were an atheist - a New Atheist, in fact, because of the ways you were reacting and the reasonings you were presenting - until you set the record straight, that you are a christian.

Now, since you refuse to provide the link where you said I lied about you regarding SSM, I can only assume that....

....you don't have any clear basis for such accusations. But you know that I have a clear basis for saying that you support SSM.

You're calling me a liar, brother. Without any evidence to prove it. And you are doing so, publicly - before all non-believers on this board.

Edited August 23, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

If what Todd Akin said makes him a radical, and AFA and FRC are saying "yeah! he's exactly right!" even after he withdrew the remark, how can they be any less radical than him?

If they came out and said, "yes. He is right that legitimate rape inhibits pregnancy (can't remember verbatim)!" so yes....those who supports that very statement are radicals like him.

But those who came out to support him as a man who had made a stupid remark and therefore shouldn't have to lose his job for it - those are not radicals!

And those who came out to suppprt him by trying to explain what he probably meant by what he said (stupid remark that could've been poorly worded), or why he could've said it - they are not radical, as long as they don't believe in that particular statement he made.

It's far from the first time somebody has said it. The pro-life movement has been propagating this lie for a long time.

Well, I am a pro-lifer and this is the first time I've heard of it! You are lumping everyone together - of course we know why, don't we? Anything to discredit religon, trying to show that they are all of the same mind along with zealots, radicals and ignorants. It is quite ignorant of you to insist to lump everyone together.

Since bigotry is mostly the product of ignorance, do you think we should conclude that the handful of people who joined recently in this segment of debate (bullying) are all bigots like you? That they support your views justifying the vicious comments from supposedly adults against a little Christian girl? Blackdog is likely along with you, given his vicious regard and identical reasoning as you. But what of the others? Maybe they are thinking the same as you and agree with you regarding Rachel incident. Maybe not.

Come to think of it, we should ask them. Nevermind giving a comment here and there in seeming support of Kimmy. Where do you stand on that particular issue of Rachel?

Squid? Dre? American Woman? Canadien?

Of course, even if they all do agree with you doesn't mean that all atheists or non-believers are like you. I wouldn't even dream of lumping all non-believers together.

When Todd Akin said "he heard it from a doctor", he was probably referring to a prominent pro-life leader named Dr John Wilkes, who has been saying this for years.

So? Where did you learn your bigotry? Your odd rationalisations? From your parents? From your peers?

From your boxing instructor?

Dr Wilkes' support for this theory comes from another famous doctor, Dr Josef Mengele. The Nazis conducted "experiments" in which women were herded into the gas chambers and a fake gas was pumped in. After the pretend execution, the Nazis discovered that some of the womens' menstrual cycles were disrupted. That's not even close to suggesting that extreme trauma is an effective contraceptive, mind you, but it's the origin of this theory.

The nazis experimented on fetus too, and pregnant Jews, and children! They think it's okay to do so since they've stripped the Jews of their humanity. They declared the Jews to be inhuman or less human - exactly the same way you declared the fetus are less human! That's why you agree with all abortionists that it's okay to rip up the fetus in the womb, limb from limb, flesh from flesh - because you decided they are not human.

Really, what an odd way of you to bring up the nazis....

Christian values like "God hates fags".

Another misconception by ignorants! God does not hate homosexuals. He hates the homosexual acts!

In fact people like you want to keep perpetuating that misconception because it's convenient for you to use the homosexuals! Shame on you!

Beats me. I'm at a loss.

Quite obviously you're very lost. In more ways than you know it.

Considering he has co-authored bills that say more or less the same thing, it makes it hard to believe this was just a slip of the tongue.

I heard him apologize for using the word "legitimate". "Because rape is never ever legitimate!" Mighty big of him.

I did not, however, hear him apologize for attempting to lie to the people by passing off this flat out false notion as a fact.

Nor did I hear him apologize for the implication that it's not a real rape unless the victim has been beaten so badly that she can't conceive.

Well, I couldn't say anything for sure since I don't know what's going on in his mind or his heart.

So do you. What you're saying are purely speculations on your part, with a dose of using your speculations as evidence to crucify him.

Nor did I hear him apologize for in essence saying that every woman who has sought an abortion after a rape is a liar.

I'm pretty unimpressed by the apology.

The mainstream news I've seen on tv only showed a clip. No anchorperson or prominent newsperson speculated the same things you're bringing up now. They're all concerned about the politics of this issue!

The big issue is related to politics. You're making a mountain out of a bump on the road.

It's being politicized because he's running for political office. As a US Senator he would be in a position to apply his profound stupidity to laws that affect all Americans.

-k

Well he's running for politics. He may get voted in or not. That's what democracy is all about.

What are suggesting now? We should become like Iran? Or the Taliban? perhaps you want to promote that we'll have a "THOUGHT police" so we can monitor what people are thinking? Then you'll know if anyone you meet on the street -especially those Christians - are thinking of you as a sinner?

Silly. I don't know why I even bother with you Kimmy. For all your insults and very vicious comments I haven't even put you on ignore.

Perhaps it's because you strike me as a young person who's going through confusions in life. You may believe this or not: tough love. Perhaps I care.

Edited August 23, 2012 by betsy

[CANADIEN]

If I had said that you support SSM, there has to be a reason why I came to that conclusion. After all, I wouldn't just come out right and say, "Canadien supports SSM" based on nothing, would I?

Perhaps you had said convoluted statements - in your feeble way to try to navigate between political correctness and your church doctrines (I don't even remember what church you belong to) - which should only prove to you that there is no such thing as trying to reconcile what is commanded in the Bible with what is desired by non-believers!

Betsy betsy betsy... So, you are not asking me to provide examples of you claiming I support SSM. You are demanding that I show you where I called you a liar. You would do agreat defence lawyer, you know...

The Crown... This person committed a crime.

Lawyer Betty: Show the Court where you said this person committed a crime

The judge: Excuse me, but shouldn't you be asking the Crown to show proof that your client committed the crime?

Lawyer Betty: See. You won't force the Crown to reveal when they accused my client. This shows that they are making false accusions.

The judge (to the accused): May I suggest you find yourself a good lawyer.

Frankly, perhaps I have misjudged you (or not). That you waste your time demnanding to know when I called you a liar instead of asking that I show your statements claiming that I support SSM - well, someone who can be that clueless may well be, after all, unable to wilfully claim something that anyone with reading capacity know is untrue.

On the other hand...

Similarly, I also thought you were an atheist - a New Atheist, in fact, because of the ways you were reacting and the reasonings you were presenting - until you set the record straight, that you are a christian.

Short memory problem? You, seriously, don't remember you aying, again and again, that I am an atheist, even while I was making it clear that I am a Christian?

Either you wilfully misrepresented what I say, which is a lie, or you seriuously need to work on your reading - and comprehension - and logic skills. You decide for yourself what it is. In the meantime, feel free to huff and puff and make a fool or yourself by claiming I can't prove you said what you said about me. I won't even bother responding.

Edited August 23, 2012 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

If they came out and said, "yes. He is right that legitimate rape inhibits pregnancy (can't remember verbatim)!" so yes....those who supports that very statement are radicals like him.

But those who came out to support him as a man who had made a stupid remark and therefore shouldn't have to lose his job for it - those are not radicals!

Perhaps not radicals. But certainly people who think "oh well, he supports our cause, so who care how much of a moron he is".

[CANADIEN]

Come to think of it, we should ask them. Nevermind giving a comment here and there in seeming support of Kimmy. Where do you stand on that particular issue of Rachel?

Squid? Dre? American Woman? Canadien?

betsy, betsy, betsy... Quote mining to statements made 6 years ago. Really... When I tire from dealing with you, I will (if I am not tired from this thread all together) deal with kimmy's CURRENT statements.

Now, I fully expect you to say something like:

"See. You won't comment because you don't care what malicious things she says". Or "See, you agree with her". Or "See, you side with non-believer against me."

Whatever.

[bleeding heart]

Religiously-speaking now, of course Satan will use anyone or anything just so to prevent the spread of the Word.

Yes, but--and correct me if I'm wrong--doesn't Scripture also warn of the Word of God itself being used by Satan, to cast divisions and pain and betrayals? Isn't that the notion of False Prophets...and even of genuine Christians who are misled, and whose good intentions have awful consequences?

[bleeding heart]

Perhaps it's because you strike me as a young person who's going through confusions in life. You may believe this or not: tough love. Perhaps I care.

I don't know about kimmy--but I'm not buying the pretence. Your remark is not only condescending...it's meant to be.

[Black Dog]

Well obviously you're not getting it! You can't see the comparison between these two scenarios.

Sure I can, that's why I made the comparison. It's the same thing.

She sure knows the pain of having a kid brother bullied, yet she herself was not only insensitive towards the parents of the Christian girl, but she also justified the bullying.

I don't consider anonymous YouTube comments bullying.

Anyway, my mistake. I should've known what to expect from you - it'll be another going around in circles with you - like a dog running around chasing its own tail.

So I'll just put you on ignore. Bye-bye Black Dog. Arf revoir.

Ha ha you're terrible at this.

Edited August 23, 2012 by Black Dog

[cybercoma]

You're calling me a liar, brother. Without any evidence to prove it. And you are doing so, publicly - before all non-believers on this board.

You think the point of all of this is to play teams?

[cybercoma]

But those who came out to support him as a man who had made a stupid remark and therefore shouldn't have to lose his job for it - those are not radicals!

may believe this or not: tough love. Perhaps I care.

You have got to be kidding me. This isn't just some guy with some job that's unrelated to his comments. This is a person that's running for the US Senate. His job is directly related to the comments that he made and the absolutely stupid and wrong beliefs that he holds. This is someone with the power to create legislation that affects everyone's lives in the US. People that want him to still run for the Senate and in fact be able to pass legislation are idiots. So stupid in fact that even Romney has condemned him.

Edited August 23, 2012 by cybercoma