Persecuted Christians In America!

[CANADIEN]

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.

Actually, I have no problem attacking other people if I feel the need orI feel like it (thanks for the compliment, though). In this particular case, it's just that to me the issue is simple - is SSM marriage, or not? And that I don't feel bullied or threatened or whatever just because people who think differently from me think I am wrong and should change my opinion (how they do it, of course, being a different matter).

Edited August 24, 2012 by CANADIEN

[betsy]

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.

No guys, you both got the chocolate analogy wrong. Here's how it goes:

The chocolate bar was not lying on the table. Daddy came to child#1 and child#2 and said:

DADDY: Here you are my children, look what special treat Daddy has for you. Now remember, this is only for you. This is special.

Child#1 and 2 : Thank you Daddy.

Then both children put the chocolate bar in their lunch box, and skipped happily to school.

Along comes 3 brothers: Children #3, #4 and #5, named Homer, Sec and Poly.

Homer, being the youngest of the three wanted some of the chocolate bar.

Homer: Give me some of that.

Child #1 <who was holding the lunch box>: No. This is only for my brother and me.

That's what Daddy clearly told us.

Child #2: Yes. I believe so....that this is only for my brother and me.

Now, the older brothers, upon hearing it's what the Daddy instructed the two, decided to really get involved now. They hated the Daddy of these two brats - since they think this Daddy is such a

party-pooper.

Sec and Poly: Well you gotta share.

Child #1: No! Our Daddy gave it to us. He said it is special and we shouldn't share it.

Child #2: I believe so....that Daddy said we shouldn't share it.

Sec and Poly: You are mean! Your Daddy is mean!

Child #1 and #2: We're not mean! Our Daddy isn't mean!

Homer: Yes you are! And your Daddy hates me!

Child #1 and 2: Our Daddy doesn't hate you. He just doesn't want you to have this paricular chocolate. It is not for you. Maybe, if you go to Him and ask politely....maybe our Daddy will give you a treat.

Sec and Poly: Well your Daddy isn't even a real Daddy! Nani-nani-boo-boo! He's just only your pretend-daddy!

Child #1 and 2: No! He is real!

Sec and Poly: You aren't cool. You are party-poopers! You're no fun!

Child #1: <sing song> Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can't hurt me.....

Child #2: I'm not a party-pooper! I am fun, too!

Sec and Poly: <to child #2> Prove it!

Child #2 turns to his brother: Maybe we should share some....

Child #1: No way, Jose! Daddy specifically said so! This is only for us.

Sec and Poly: Oh you two ignoramus!

Child #1: <sing song> Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can't hurt me.....

Child #2: I'm not an ignoramus!

Sec and Poly: <to #2> Prove it!

Child #2 turns to his brother: Well....they actually have a point, you know. We are being mean if we don't share. Daddy doesn't want us to be mean, does He?

Child #1: No, He doesn't want us to be mean, but He also said specifically that this is only for us. He wants us to obey Him more than anything. Because when we try our best to obey Him, we prove that we love Him. And He wants us to LOVE HIM with all our heart, with all our mind and with all our soul. That's the very first thing written on the memo! And Big Brother explained it to us, remember? Before He went overseas? He said that first thing on the list is the top priority! Duh.

Sec and Poly: Oh you guys are so pathetic! Do you always do what your daddy tells you? :lol:

Child #2 to 3 brothers: Wait, wait....I'm working on it.

Homer, Sec and Poly: If you don't share, we'll bash you that everyone will know how mean, and pathetic, and ignoramus you both are!

Poly: I'll tell the Principal how you hurt Homer's feelings by not sharing, and you'll get detention!

Child #1: BULLY! BULLY! BULLY!

Child #2 to his brother: Don't you say "duh" to me! I'm telling you they got a point. Maybe Daddy is overdoing this instructions thingy! After all, He also said Love your neighbors, didn't He? So yes....that should trump His specific instruction "not to share." We'll say, "well You said to love our neighbors!"

Child #1: No way, Jose! The instruction is very clear. THIS IS SPECIALLY ONLY FOR US.

Child #2 to his brother: Why are you being difficult? You are mean, you know! You've always have that mean streak in you....don't think I didn't notice! You don't want to share! You're being greedy!

And you always have to throw Daddy's words into everything!

Besides, it's not like as if we'll lose the whole chocolate bar if we share.

I'll be content with what's left....and besides it doesn't change the fact that I still do believe the chocolate was meant for us. But we still have some of it, don't we? So what's your point?

Child #1: But we have to mind Daddy!

Child #2: We'll call it chips, if that will make you feel better.

Child #1: But it's not chips. It's chocolate! It's the chocolate they want! Not the chips!

Child #2: Oh for heaven's sake! <grabbed the lunch box, grabbed the chocolate bar and broke it>

Here Homer, you can have some of it!

Child #1: You broke it! You shared it!

Child #2: So? I still believe that it's meant for us only! That belief did not change.

Child #1: But it's not whole anymore.

Child #2: So? I still believe that it's meant for us only! That belief did not change.

Child #1: But we're supposed to have it all. That's what Daddy said.

Child #2: So? I still believe that it's meant for us only! That belief did not change.

Child #1 went off stomping and huffing!

Child #2 to Homer, Sec and Poly: Don't mind him. He's always been the emotional one you know. A little bit loose here <points to his head>, if you know what I mean....

Homer, Sec and Poly: Ha-ha-ha! You're cool after all, comrade! You're one of us!

<patting his shoulders; Homer gave him a big hug>

Homer: Thanks for sticking up for me.

Child #2: <blushes> awww....shucks guys.....thanks.

Edited August 24, 2012 by betsy

[Smallc]

That's why there's the reference to God and what is an abomination to God.

So how do you feel about shellfish then? Pork?

[betsy]

So how do you feel about shellfish then? Pork?

They're good! Yummy in my tummy. Blessed and sanctified by God through thanksgiving.

It's in the New Testament!

Edited August 24, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

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

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.

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

So, explain where I'm getting it wrong with this analysis of your ramblings.

betsy:

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.

Edited August 24, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

bleeding heart, on 24 August 2012 - 08:41 AM, said:

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:

Actually, I have no problem attacking other people if I feel the need or I feel like it (thanks for the compliment, though). In this particular case, it's just that to me the issue is simple - is SSM marriage, or not? And that I don't feel bullied or threatened or whatever just because people who think differently from me think I am wrong and should change my opinion (how they do it, of course, being a different matter).

You know we go beyond merely feeling threatened, or bullied.

So, is Same sex marriage a marriage or not?

Edited August 24, 2012 by betsy

[cybercoma]

Actually, I have no problem attacking other people if I feel the need orI feel like it (thanks for the compliment, though). In this particular case, it's just that to me the issue is simple - is SSM marriage, or not? And that I don't feel bullied or threatened or whatever just because people who think differently from me think I am wrong and should change my opinion (how they do it, of course, being a different matter).

I don't think anyone thinks you're wrong and should change your opinion. You believe SSM is wrong. However, you have the perspicacity to know that you don't get to force other people to observe your religious beliefs because you believe they're right. You don't agree with SSM, so you're not going to have one. It's up to others to choose what relationship they want.

On the other hand, betsy believes SSM is wrong and nobody else should be allowed to have one either regardless of what they believe. She wants other people to change their beliefs to match hers and act in the ways she acts. If they will not, she wants the government to force them to. It's only right because that's what God wants in her opinion.

[CANADIEN]

You know we go beyond merely feeling threatened, or bullied.

So, is Same sex marriage a marriage or not?

Obviously, stating that anything other than the union between one man and one woman is NOT a marriage is a clear enough indication of my opinion about SSM for about everyone... you being one notable exception. What part of "If it's not between one man and woman it is not a marriage" do you have a problem understanding?

[CANADIEN]

I don't think anyone thinks you're wrong and should change your opinion. You believe SSM is wrong. However, you have the perspicacity to know that you don't get to force other people to observe your religious beliefs because you believe they're right. You don't agree with SSM, so you're not going to have one. It's up to others to choose what relationship they want.

To clarify. I do not think SSM is marriage, or that it should be considered one. Had there been a vote on this issue, my vote would have reflected that.

Now, I know some people believe my opinion is wrong. I think the same about them.

[Black Dog]

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.

I think there's a major difference between random YouTubes and the kind of malicious, targeted actions that constitute cyber bullying. You'd be hard pressed to find any YouTube video where the comments weren't full of similar crap: doesn't make it bullying, it makes it spam.

[BubberMiley]

Youtube comments are a delightful representation of humanity in its purest form. They helped me convert to misanthropism.

[betsy]

American Woman:

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.

well, my bad.

The concept of marriage is our English western idea of what that union is. It's anachronistic to speak of marriage, because it's our concept, not the ancient concept of that type of union. That having been said, both concepts may be, and in many respects probably are, similar. And since we only speak English - as far as I know you don't speak Greek or Hebrew - we'll have to make do with the English translation.

Take an example the word "gay." There was a unequivocal definition. Now, all that is changed. The same thing is going on with marriage. re-defining words simply muddies the discussion. Marriage in our jurisdiction is the union of a man and a woman Now, gay activists are trying to change that.

We do know in ancient times that homosexual relationships were not accepted as legitimate unions. They may have been tolerated, but they haven't until now been accepted as "normal." Even in ancient Sparta where men-boy relationships (mentoring) was a part of their military system, the homosexual aspect is acknowledged in ancient literature - but with a wink and a nod. Not with acceptance as a normal thing.

Of course "homosexual" does not appear in the Bible - neither does "abortion". They are English words. Even in our translations we've been delicate enough to translate euphemistically. But a "man lying with a man" is a man lying with a man.

Edited August 24, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

Obviously, stating that anything other than the union between one man and one woman is NOT a marriage is a clear enough indication of my opinion about SSM for about everyone... you being one notable exception. What part of "If it's not between one man and woman it is not a marriage" do you have a problem understanding?

Perhaps because of your convoluted contortions with the issue?

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.

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.

That's why I said:

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.

So don't blame me. If it looks like a duck....it walks like a duck...and it reasons like a duck....it is a duck!

Edited August 24, 2012 by betsy

[GostHacked]

Hmm I think I will put Betsy back up top of my most fave troll list again.

[bleeding heart]

Youtube comments are a delightful representation of humanity in its purest form. They helped me convert to misanthropism.

Ha!

[cybercoma]

To clarify. I do not think SSM is marriage, or that it should be considered one. Had there been a vote on this issue, my vote would have reflected that.

Now, I know some people believe my opinion is wrong. I think the same about them.

Then you're nothing more than an oppressive jerk that doesn't deserve the time of day. Why anyone would want to prevent two people who love each other from being able to marry is beyond me. The fact that you would use political and legal channels to prevent others from being happy is disgusting.

[cybercoma]

well, my bad.

The concept of marriage is our English western idea of what that union is. It's anachronistic to speak of marriage, because it's our concept, not the ancient concept of that type of union. That having been said, both concepts may be, and in many respects probably are, similar. And since we only speak English - as far as I know you don't speak Greek or Hebrew - we'll have to make do with the English translation.

Take an example the word "gay." There was a unequivocal definition. Now, all that is changed. The same thing is going on with marriage. re-defining words simply muddies the discussion. Marriage in our jurisdiction is the union of a man and a woman Now, gay activists are trying to change that.

We do know in ancient times that homosexual relationships were not accepted as legitimate unions. They may have been tolerated, but they haven't until now been accepted as "normal." Even in ancient Sparta where men-boy relationships (mentoring) was a part of their military system, the homosexual aspect is acknowledged in ancient literature - but with a wink and a nod. Not with acceptance as a normal thing.

Of course "homosexual" does not appear in the Bible - neither does "abortion". They are English words. Even in our translations we've been delicate enough to translate euphemistically. But a "man lying with a man" is a man lying with a man.

First of all, marriage isn't unique to our culture or your religion.

Secondly, homosexuality didn't exist as a term until the 19th century.

Thirdly, the Greeks saw sexuality as an appetitive desire, so having homosexual intercourse was a perfectly acceptable way to feed one's sexual appetite. What wasn't acceptable was over-indulging in one's appetites, regardless of what they may be. Eating too much food, drinking to much wine, or having too much sex of any kind was bad. Doing those things in and of themselves were not considered abnormal as you write.

Since it's quite obvious you're speaking about things of which you have absolutely no knowledge, I would suggest actually learning about the things you're talking about before posting about them. Maybe you should read some credible sources on the history of the Greeks, marriage, and homosexuality rather than the blog posts of Christian zealots. Try actually educating yourself rather than listening to your echo chambers.

Edited August 24, 2012 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

And another thing, in OUR culture there was a one-sex theory of human anatomy that was understood and followed by doctors as late as the early modern era. That's until the beginning of the 19th century, which isn't all that long ago in the grand scheme of things. Imagine how that screws up your clear-cut definitions of homosexuality and heterosexuality pre-19th century.

[CANADIEN]

Then you're nothing more than an oppressive jerk that doesn't deserve the time of day. Why anyone would want to prevent two people who love each other from being able to marry is beyond me. The fact that you would use political and legal channels to prevent others from being happy is disgusting.

An oppressive jerk? As much as you are a bully, I guess L. If that's your opinion, so be it. Let's just be clear on one thing , shall we? If two people of the same gender want be happy and grow old together, good for them. They want to make their union official, they can go for it. It is not a marriage.

[cybercoma]

An oppressive jerk? As much as you are a bully, I guess L. If that's your opinion, so be it. Let's just be clear on one thing , shall we? If two people of the same gender want be happy and grow old together, good for them. They want to make their union official, they can go for it. It is not a marriage.

Saying it's not a marriage is just plain nonsense. As much as I hate using the word, since Shady overuses it, it certainly applies here. You can go around saying that "dogs" are "tables" all you want, but it's totally absurd. So is saying a marriage is not a marriage because the couple doesn't fit your ridiculous gender qualifications.

[Guest American Woman]

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

Of course it's "futile" because you can't refute what I said.

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.

O.M.G. What HE believes, his viewpoint, is the truth about what HE believes.

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

I'm an atheist now?

I'm quoting this, and what you said about what Canadien says he believes not being the truth about what he believes, because, well, it just shows how you label anyone who believes differently than what you think they should. You put everyone in a box, label them, dishonestly, I might add, according to your judgement. You do know what the Bible says about judging, right? Here are just a few reminders - with my added emphasis:

Matthew 7:1 & 2- Do not judge, lest you too be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

Matthew 7: 2-4- For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you.

Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?

Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye?

John 8:7- If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to cast a stone at her.

Matthew 5:15-

But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Luke 6:37- Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven

Romans 14:12-14 - So then each of us will give an account of himself to God. Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother. I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean.

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

All I can say in response is that I think the mindset that you are projecting is likely the part of the inspiration for this.

[Moonlight Graham]

.

I haven't been keeping with this discussion. So why do you not believe SSM is right, and how is this decision informed by your Christian beliefs in God?

[betsy]

O.M.G. What HE believes, his viewpoint, is the truth about what HE believes.

What do you mean by that? You're simply saying that what he believes, he believes.

The point is, is what he believes true?

Of course to a relativist, whatever someone believes is okay (true). The reality is that in relativism, there is no right or wrong, no true or false. When eveything is true, nothing is true.

Your problem is you believe truth and belief are necessrily the same.

But your belief isn't true.

Edited August 25, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

I'm an atheist now?

I'm quoting this, and what you said about what Canadien says he believes not being the truth about what he believes, because, well, it just shows how you label anyone who believes differently than what you think they should. You put everyone in a box, label them, dishonestly, I might add, according to your judgement. You do know what the Bible says about judging, right? Here are just a few reminders - with my added emphasis:

Matthew 7:1 & 2- Do not judge, lest you too be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

Matthew 7: 2-4- For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you.

Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?

Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye?

John 8:7- If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to cast a stone at her.

Matthew 5:15-

But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Luke 6:37- Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven

Romans 14:12-14 - So then each of us will give an account of himself to God. Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother. I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean.

Well I don't actually know what you are. Even if you said so somewhere what you are....I couldn't possibly remember. I'm just going by how anyone reasons in the forum. It is your stance that often times defines you.

You may be another Christian for all I know, but if you are reasoning like an agnostic, or an atheist or a non-believer, then it is what you are. Unless you are faking it.

Edited August 25, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

All I can say in response is that I think the mindset that you are projecting is likely the part of the inspiration for this.

It's what you'd choose to believe is true....is that surprising?