Persecuted Christians In America!

[betsy]

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...

I'm asking you to give the link where I called you a supporter of SSM.

I'd like to know why I called you such - there has to be a basis for it!

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.

yada-yada-yada.

In other words, you don't have any evidence at all!

On the other hand...

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?

Well speaking of on the other hand - I'm actually doubting again if you are indeed a christian, as you say you are. You can be a "poseur" for all I know. Your declaration of Christianhood doesn't seem to complement with your posts. In most, if not all of the debates in Religion, you seem to be always in support of the other team.

Canadien

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.

Well here is one. Unlike you....I give evidences. I don't falsely accuse. Which is to say, I also don't lie.

Post #727 Betsy

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

How simple a statement is that?

Ha-ha! You didn't even understand what I was asking from you when it was given in simple English. What? You think it's a davinci code that has to be deciphered?

And here is another evidence that obviously explained why I was asking for the link! To know exactly why I said you suppoprt SSM!

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.

Betsy:

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.

So logically speaking, why on earth would I bother to ask you to give me YOUR STATEMENTS alone when you already informed me of those -_that's why you accused me of lying, remember? Obviously I want to know where I said "you support SSM" since I told you there has to be a basis for my statement. They were based on your own statements!

And yeah! I'm saying again that you got zits as to anything to back up your false accusations against me. You very well know there was a basis for me to say you support SSM! You provided that basis!

I'm glad to know you won't respond. I'd wanted to stop debating with you as explained from my previous post, but you've chosen instead to pursue the matter and came up with an accusation I cannot ignore.

See what happens when you get yourself yoked with revilers of God? See why God commanded us not to get yoked with them? You end up becoming a....RELATIVIST - to say the least.

Edited August 23, 2012 by betsy

[BubberMiley]

I'm saying again that you got zits as to anything to back up your false accusations against me.

That's a low blow to bring acne into it. Some people are sensitive about that.

[bleeding heart]

See what happens when you get yourself yoked with revilers of God? See why God commanded us not to get yoked with them? You end up becoming a....RELATIVIST - to say the least.

Most of us don't revile God...we doubt her very existence. It's not the same thing.

But I'm interested that you feel we have such a baleful influence.

[Guest American Woman]

I'm asking you to give the link where I called you a supporter of SSM.

Will this do?

I am not lying about you. You perhaps don't think anything is being taken from you, but obviously a lot of Christians do! Whereas marriage was the union of man and woman (as God specifically wanted it to be) - obviously now, it's no longer! 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? [...]

You may think that you're not "handing it over"....but you are arguing for it, in support of it.

Since you said that he is arguing for it, in support of it, one would deduct that you are saying that he supports it; ie: that he's "a supporter of SSM."

Edited August 23, 2012 by American Woman

[betsy]

Will this do?

Since you said that he is arguing for it, in support of it, one would deduct that you are saying that he supports it; ie: that he's "a supporter of SSM."

Yes. Thank you.

betsy, on 14 August 2012 - 05:29 PM, said:

I am not lying about you. You perhaps don't think anything is being taken from you, but obviously a lot of Christians do! Whereas marriage was the union of man and woman (as God specifically wanted it to be) - obviously now, it's no longer! 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? [...]

You may think that you're not "handing it over"....but you are arguing for it, in support of it.

It is an explanation why I said he supports SSM.

Edited August 23, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

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?

If you as an atheist are asking me this, then it is a disingenous question since you don't believe in the existence of Satan.

Or are you asking me if I believe that?

[Guest American Woman]

It is an explanation why I said he supports SSM.

But even as you explain why you said it, you are still claiming that he is "arguing for it, in support of it." Obviously, if he doesn't support it, he wouldn't be arguing for it, in support of it - and your claim that he is does amount to your saying that he supports it.

[betsy]

Most of us don't revile God...we doubt her very existence. It's not the same thing.

Well obviously I wasn't talking about you then as among the revilers of God. So you are an agnostic?

I guess you fall under the category of, "non-believers."

But I'm interested that you feel we have such a baleful influence.

There's more to it than just plain "feeling."

2 Cor 6

14 Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? 15 What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? 16 What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols?

[betsy]

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

I don't care what you think, whether you buy it or not.

[betsy]

But even as you explain why you said it, you are still claiming that he is "arguing for it, in support of it."

If one doesn't support it, one wouldn't be arguing for it.

betsy:

Gays have always had the same right as heterosexuals to get married, following the traditional and Biblical definition of marriage.

This one belongs in a category of its own. Not really, actually...

Sounds like...

A Black man and a white woman have the same right as anyone else to marry... as long as they don't marrry each other.

A Black woman can sit in the same bus as a white woman... as long as she sits at the back.

Quebec Anglophones have the same rights as Quebec Francophones... the same right to use French that is.

The "gays have the same right as anyone else to marry someone of the opposite sex" is an insult to gays, an insult to the debate, and an insult to intelligence.

That he claimed he doesn't feel that nothing had been taken away from him in marriage is one thing....however he is forgetting about the issue with God, and what it means to Christians.

It is not about Canadien. Whether he feels it's taken anything from him or not is not the point.

It is about God. The sanctity of marriage. And the definition of marriage He gave to Christians.

Canadien:

And why do you keep LYING about me? I have said clearly I believe marriage is between man and woman. Three times now. I have said (I've stopped counting the times now) that nothing is being taken away from me, or any married couple I know, because civil law includes a definition of marriage that I do not accept. Nothing complex about that. Nothing relativist about that. Your false claim that I am handing over anything to anyone has no basis in anything I have written here.

betsy, on 14 August 2012 - 05:29 PM, said:

I am not lying about you. You perhaps don't think anything is being taken from you, but obviously a lot of Christians do! Whereas marriage was the union of man and woman (as God specifically wanted it to be) - obviously now, it's no longer! 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? [...]

You may think that you're not "handing it over"....but you are arguing for it, in support of it.

If he is not in support of SSM, he did not need to say the above. Clearly he is saying that since he feels "nothing is being taken away from him" therefore it is okay to change the definition of marriage to include same-sex union. Boy, that's basically the same justification of some non-believer heterosexual couples who support SSM! He gave his justification why it should therefore, be allowed.

He can say and emphasize repeatedly that he believes that marriage is between a man and a woman.....I never said he does not believe that. I said he supports SSM.

Edited August 23, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

Anyway, I don't want to talk anymore about Canadien since he says he won't be responding.

If he says he doesn't support SSM, we'll leave it at that.

Edited August 23, 2012 by betsy

[The_Squid]

Anyway, I don't want to talk anymore about Canadien since he says he won't be responding.

If he says he doesn't support SSM, we'll leave it at that.

14 minutes ago you left a long diatribe about how he is the liar, not you.... now this? LOL You are all over the place!!

[guyser]

Whether he feels it's taken anything from him or not is not the point.

It is about God. The sanctity of marriage. And the definition of marriage He gave to Christians.

Except as was proven earlier, God didnt give us marriage silly. The church didnt give a shit about it for years....until the realized they could use it ot their advantage.

Cue Church Lady....."How conveeeeeenient"

Clearly he is saying that since he feels "nothing is being taken away from him" therefore it is okay to change the definition of marriage to include same-sex union.

Only an idiot would think otherwise.

Please tell me you dont think your marriage (or any others)are lessened by SSM.

---> I have a chocolate bar.

---> Billy has one now too.

--->waaaa.....

That cannot be a logical response for any one, christian or not.

Lets not forget just how bad christians have pissed on marriage for eons, not to mention adultery and a hundred other sins.

One can hardly say (with a striaght face) that marriage is any sacred sanctity worth saving from a christian perspective

Edited August 23, 2012 by guyser

[betsy]

14 minutes ago you left a long diatribe about how he is the liar, not you.... now this? LOL You are all over the place!!

Then perhaps you ought to scroll back and follow the whole exchange why I had to give that long diatribe...obviously you're missing the major point of it all.

Edited August 23, 2012 by betsy

[Guest American Woman]

If one doesn't support it, one wouldn't be arguing for it.

And he's NOT arguing for it. It's your claim that he is, even though he's repeatedly stated HIS stance on it.

That he claimed he doesn't feel that nothing had been taken away from him in marriage is one thing....however he is forgetting about the issue with God, and what it means to Christians.

It is not about Canadien. Whether he feels it's taken anything from him or not is not the point.

It is about God. The sanctity of marriage. And the definition of marriage He gave to Christians.

O.M.G. "God" didn't give any definitions to Christians. "God" didn't write the Bible; people did. Furthermore, they didn't write it in English, it was translated into English according to different people's interpretation of it - which is why there are several translations/versions of the Bible. Last but not least, there weren't even any English words for some of the words used in the Bible, and "homosexual" is one such word. The word "homosexual" does not appear in the Bible.

Last but not least, if you are correct and God is unhappy with gay marriages, then they are not blessed by God, while man-woman marriages are. What more do you want? Isn't God's blessing enough?

If he is not in support of SSM, he did not need to say the above.

He did if it's what he believes! You say whatever you feel you need to say, and he has that same right. It's not up to you to determine what he can or can't say, what he needs or doesn't need to say. He can believe what he wants and say what he wants.

Clearly he is saying that since he feels "nothing is being taken away from him" therefore it is okay to change the definition of marriage to include same-sex union.

Once again you are saying, falsely, that he supports SSM. Even as you deny that you say it! He clearly said no such thing. He doesn't believe the definition should be changed BUT his belief isn't based on the notion that same sex marriages would be taking something away from him. That is what he is clearly saying.

Boy, that's basically the same justification of some non-believer heterosexual couples who support SSM!

Yes, it is. So what? What does that have to do with HIS point of view?

He gave his justification why it should therefore, be allowed.

No he didn't. And you are just proving him right - again - when he says that you falsely accuse him of supporting SSM.

[...] I said he supports SSM.

Yes, just as he said:

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.

I'm asking you to give the link

where I called you a supporter of SSM.

This post will do, eh? Again:

I said he supports SSM.

Edited August 23, 2012 by American Woman

[cybercoma]

Most of us don't revile God...we doubt her very existence. It's not the same thing.

But I'm interested that you feel we have such a baleful influence.

How does someone revile something they don't believe exists anyway?

[Guest American Woman]

I don't consider anonymous YouTube comments bullying.

Just because you don't consider it bullying doesn't mean that it isn't; in fact, it has resulted in proposed legislation because anonymity on the internet makes bullying so much easier and more prevalent. Cyberbullying often occurs under the cloak of anonymity, and if you think making rude, unkind, violent comments about a real person on YouTube isn't bullying, I have to wonder where you are coming from.

[CANADIEN]

Well speaking of on the other hand - I'm actually doubting again if you are indeed a christian, as you say you are. You can be a "poseur" for all I know. Your declaration of Christianhood doesn't seem to complement with your posts. In most, if not all of the debates in Religion, you seem to be always in support of the other team.

First, just in case you are wondering... What I said, and that you didn't get (oh surprise) is that I would not bother responding to the "show me where you called me a liar" vibrant example of your uncanny capacity to have people scratch their head wondering "what the heck is she saying".

That being said. You got me. I must confess to the whole world. I AM a poseur. All a life of trying to follow God, failing at times (many times, like all of us), trying again, praying, attending Mass (yes, I pose as a Catholic... problems with Catholics too? just wondering). All that a sham. It must be. After all, I say that the definition of marriage that comes from God is the only one I recognize as valid, therefore I MUST be in favour of SSM.

But believe me, it doesn't stop there. My opinion that there is something foundamentally wrong with the growing gap between the richest of the richest and the middle class... HAS to be an attack on the notion of feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless and all those other thing that true believers call "not bad things to do". But I must admit I never even thought for a second that my belief that life begins at conception OUGHT to be an implicit support for abortion.

Yep. You REALLY REALLY REALLY unmasked me.

Edited August 24, 2012 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

How does someone revile something they don't believe exists anyway?

Well. I must admit. I revile the tooth fairy for never leaving me a cent.

[CANADIEN]

Except as was proven earlier, God didnt give us marriage silly. The church didnt give a shit about it for years....until the realized they could use it ot their advantage.

Cue Church Lady....."How conveeeeeenient"

Only an idiot would think otherwise.

Please tell me you dont think your marriage (or any others)are lessened by SSM.

---> I have a chocolate bar.

---> Billy has one now too.

--->waaaa.....

That cannot be a logical response for any one, christian or not.

Lets not forget just how bad christians have pissed on marriage for eons, not to mention adultery and a hundred other sins.

One can hardly say (with a striaght face) that marriage is any sacred sanctity worth saving from a christian perspective

I am afraid that you get the chocolate bar anology wrong. It looks like this:

Person no 1, seeing a chocolate bar: A chocolate bar, it`s mine, all mine

Person no 2, seeing a bag of chips: A chocolate bar, can I get some

No 1: The chocolate is mine

No 2: I don't want your chocolate bar, I just want some of that other one over there.

No 1: You want to force me to share my chocolate bar away from me. You're a bully

Me: Hope you like your chocolate bar, no 1. What do you think of that bag of chips no 2?

No 2: It's a chocolate bar

No 1: See? He wants my chocolate bar, he's a bully

Me: sorry folks, but that's a bag of chips, not a chocolate bar

No 1: I should have known it. You support that bag of chips

Now, I would be tempted to argue wih you the rest of your ostings. But I can't. After all, I support SSM; so says betsy.

[betsy]

And he's NOT arguing for it. It's your claim that he is, even though he's repeatedly stated HIS stance on it.

O.M.G. "God" didn't give any definitions to Christians. "God" didn't write the Bible; people did.

I was debating with Canadien as one Chrsitian to another. That's why there's the reference to God and what is an abomination to God. That's at the very core of this discussion.

Furthermore, they didn't write it in English, it was translated into English according to different people's interpretation of it - which is why there are several translations/versions of the Bible. Last but not least, there weren't even any English words for some of the words used in the Bible, and "homosexual" is one such word. The word "homosexual" does not appear in the Bible.

You know what.....it's futile to even explain this or argue about this with you, so I'll just leave it.

Maybe you can help me though. We know that there are unions between men and women and who knows between what else before the Bible.....there were rituals and ceremonies conducted depending on cultures.

I've been trying to find what they call the union of a man and woman before God spoke about the word "marriage." Keep in mind we're talking pre-Genesis.

So what was the union between man and woman called before that? If you know, cite please. It'd be much appreciated.

Last but not least, if you are correct and God is unhappy with gay marriages, then they are not blessed by God, while man-woman marriages are. What more do you want? Isn't God's blessing enough?

That's already been explained. Go back and read my explanation to Canadien.

He did if it's what he believes! You say whatever you feel you need to say, and he has that same right. It's not up to you to determine what he can or can't say, what he needs or doesn't need to say. He can believe what he wants and say what he wants.

Classic relativists' point of view! He can believe what he wants and say what he wants.

He may believe anything, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's the truth! You see the problem with relativism...."truth" is anyway you want it to be.

Once again you are saying, falsely, that he supports SSM. Even as you deny that you say it! He clearly said no such thing. He doesn't believe the definition should be changed BUT his belief isn't based on the notion that same sex marriages would be taking something away from him. That is what he is clearly saying.

Well of course I'm saying the same thing again! What do you think? Though it's been expanded to explain, it's still the same argument. You think I should shift grounds because you're quoting another statement?

Yes, it is. So what? What does that have to do with HIS point of view?

To an atheist, nothing.

But as I said, this part is largely a debate between two CHRISTIANS! So sticking your atheistic view into it is not actually relevant.

No he didn't. And you are just proving him right - again - when he says that you falsely accuse him of supporting SSM.

No, there's nothing falsely about my accusation to him. That's how he projected himself.

That's what the gist of his statements convey: That although he believes the definition of a marriage is a union between man and woman, he does not think anything is being taken from him if the definition of marriage is changed to include the union of two men, therefore he doesn't see any reason why anyone should try to oppose the demand of the gay movement in their demand for SSM.

If you cannot understand the clarity and logic in that, then think your way. After all, as you said, you can believe and say anything you want. It's meaningless to discuss with someone who can make truth anything they want it to be.

Yes, just as he said:

This post will do, eh? Again:

Oh yes. Excellently. Thank you.

Edited August 24, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

First, just in case you are wondering... What I said, and that you didn't get (oh surprise) is that I would not bother responding to the "show me where you called me a liar" vibrant example of your uncanny capacity to have people scratch their head wondering "what the heck is she saying".

That being said. You got me. I must confess to the whole world. I AM a poseur. All a life of trying to follow God, failing at times (many times, like all of us), trying again, praying, attending Mass (yes, I pose as a Catholic... problems with Catholics too? just wondering). All that a sham. It must be. After all, I say that the definition of marriage that comes from God is the only one I recognize as valid, therefore I MUST be in favour of SSM.

But believe me, it doesn't stop there. My opinion that there is something foundamentally wrong with the growing gap between the richest of the richest and the middle class... HAS to be an attack on the notion of feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless and all those other thing that true believers call "not bad things to do". But I must admit I never even thought for a second that my belief that life begins at conception OUGHT to be an implicit support for abortion.

Yep. You REALLY REALLY REALLY unmasked me.

I didn't unmask you! You did that to yourself.

You provided all the basis for my opinion of you! What do you think? You seem to forget, we are in forum - I don't know anything about you. I don't see your expression, or your body language. I can't see what's in your heart. I can't read your mind but I surely can read what you write.

I can't tell anything about you based on anything else.... other than what you convey on this forum!

If you think you are being unfairly judged.....then perhaps you should consider what you say, and how you say them.

Edited August 24, 2012 by betsy

[bleeding heart]

If you as an atheist are asking me this, then it is a disingenous question since you don't believe in the existence of Satan.

Or are you asking me if I believe that?

I'm asking you if you believe it.

Edited August 24, 2012 by bleeding heart

[bleeding heart]

Classic relativists' point of view! He can believe what he wants and say what he wants.

He may believe anything, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's the truth! You see the problem with relativism...."truth" is anyway you want it to be.

Canadien isn't engaging in relativism. He has clearly stated his faith-based beliefs; he only sees no point in attacking those who differ. This sets him apart, arguably, from both the supporters and opponents of ss marriage on this forum.

[CANADIEN]

I didn't unmask you! You did that to yourself.

Oh surprise (not). You are actually clueless to the point of not realizing that ahem confession is my way of making fun of you.

You provided all the basis for my opinion of you! What do you think? You seem to forget, we are in forum - I don't anything about you. I don't see your expression, or your body language. I can't see what's in your heart. I can't read your mind but I surely can read what you write.

Correction. The fact that you claim that I support SSM based on what I write proves how dismal your reading - and logical thinking - skills are.

If you think you are being unfairly judged.....then perhaps you should consider what you say, and how you say them.

In other words... I am responsible for the fact that your interpretation of what I write defies logic.

Me: 1+1 =2

You: There is someone out there who says 1+1=6

Me: He's wrong.

You: He thinks you are wrong. He wants you to change your mind. He's a bully who wants to share your equation.

Me: Uh? That,s not bullying, and 1+1 = 2

You: But he says that...

Me: Whatever he says, 1+1 =2

You: Evidently, you agree with him.

Edited August 24, 2012 by CANADIEN