Persecuted Christians In America!

[Guest American Woman]

You can always just not read it.

Folks, I personally think it's time to end some of the ridiculous thread drift and get back on topic. I'd like to see more of kimmy's latest examples of Christian "persecution" and a lot less Crazy Church Lady from here on out.

And you can take your own advice and just not read "Crazy Church Lady" posts.

Me, I put it all in the same category - which was the point of my post, in case you truly missed it.

[Black Dog]

Folks, I personally think it's time to end some of the ridiculous thread drift and get back on topic. I'd like to see more of kimmy's latest examples of Christian "persecution" and a lot less Crazy Church Lady from here on out.

And you can take your own advice and just not read "Crazy Church Lady" posts.

Here's the thing: I enjoy kimmy's posts and the dialogue around them. The crazy church lady stuff drowns that out.

Me, I put it all in the same category - which was the point of my post, in case you truly missed it.

That says more about you than anything else.

[betsy]

Yes, Betsy, of course. The daughters got him too drunk to know that he was having sex with his own children. Lot set the standard defense for incestuous fathers everywhere - "no, really, she wanted it!"

Melanie, I've been thinking about your comment above. Let's look at the scenario again about Lot and his daughters.

Gen 19: 31-35

“Then the firstborn said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is not a man on earth to come in to us after the manner of the earth. “Come, let us make our father drink wine, and let us lie with him that we may preserve our family through our father.” So they made their father drink wine that night, and the firstborn went in and lay with her father; and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose. On the following day, the firstborn said to the younger, “Behold, I lay last night with my father; let us make him drink wine tonight also; then you go in and lie with him, that we may preserve our family through our father.” So they made their father drink wine that night also, and the younger arose and lay with him; and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose.”

Given the circumstances how the girls practically drugged their father so to have their way with him, and yet in your view, it is still somehow Lot's fault.....then it's only logical to assume that you view date-rape the same way. That it's not really rape? That date rape victims only played, "hard-to-get?"

Edited August 28, 2012 by betsy

[Guest American Woman]

Here's the thing: I enjoy kimmy's posts and the dialogue around them. The crazy church lady stuff drowns that out.

Good for you. Now if it were all about you, that might be pertinent. I happen to enjoy it all equally.

That says more about you than anything else.

And that says more about you than anything else.

[Black Dog]

Good for you. Now if it were all about you, that might be pertinent. I happen to enjoy it all equally.

You probably also enjoy trying to reason with schizophrenic people on the bus, so whatever floats your goat.

And that says more about you than anything else.

Your best posts are always those where you copy smarter people.

[Guest American Woman]

You probably also enjoy trying to reason with schizophrenic people on the bus, so whatever floats your goat.

Is that how you see it? As my trying to "reason" with betsy? I'm no more trying to reason with her than I am with schizophrenic people on the bus you; I just enjoy the outrage and hypocrisy and claims of superiority flying all around - and pointing it out at times. I enjoy it from all, not just the religious.

Your best posts are always those where you copy smarter people.

Which would explain why that wasn't my best post.

[Black Dog]

Is that how you see it? As my trying to "reason" with betsy? I'm no more trying to reason with her than I am with schizophrenic people on the bus you; I just enjoy the outrage and hypocrisy and claims of superiority flying all around - and pointing it out at times. I enjoy it from all, not just the religious.

I can't see how anyone could seriously make a claim of equivalence between kimmy's posts and betsy's here, but I've long ago given up making sense of your rabble rabble.

[Guest American Woman]

I can't see how anyone could seriously make a claim of equivalence between kimmy's posts and betsy's here, but I've long ago given up making sense of your rabble rabble.

Now if you would only give up responding, all would be right with the world.

[Black Dog]

Now if you would only give up responding, all would be right with the world.

Not so long as you continued to post/exist.

[Guest American Woman]

Now if you would only give up responding, all would be right with the world.

Not so long as you continued to post/exist.

Awwwww, you just can't stop yourself, can you? Don't feel too bad, though; you're not alone. I am rather irresistible.

Edited August 28, 2012 by American Woman

[Black Dog]

Awwwww, you just can't stop yourself, can you? Don't feel too bad, though; you're not alone. I am rather irresistible.

Ah so you're just here for the attention you clearly aren't getting elsewhere in your life. Explains a lot.

[Guest American Woman]

Ah so you're just here for the attention you clearly aren't getting elsewhere in your life. Explains a lot.

Still can't stop yourself, eh?

:lol:

[kimmy]

I've bumped the "Bible" thread so that people can take the discussion of what an awesome dad Lot was over to there.

-k

[kimmy]

Now, let me preface this by saying that Tim Tebow isn't crying that he's being persecuted for his religious beliefs.

Sports-media dumb-guy Skip Bayless is saying that Tim Tebow s being persecuted for his religious beliefs. Here's the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW0q4yixfC0

Amusingly, some people apparently think the network was trying to censor Skip with the commercials. It's a persecution conspiracy!

I like that Skip remembered to bring out the ever-popular "if he were a Muslim, people wouldn't be attacking his beliefs!" Funny stuff, Skip.

Steven Smith does a good job in refuting it.

Just for laughs, here's Skip Bayless getting humiliated on TV by Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hv2jqFd2-qI

-k

[cybercoma]

I love the top comment on that Mark Cuban video: "Cuban won the debate because he played harder and wanted it more than Skip."

[betsy]

Now, let me preface this by saying that Tim Tebow isn't crying that he's being persecuted for his religious beliefs.

Sports-media dumb-guy Skip Bayless is saying that Tim Tebow s being persecuted for his religious beliefs. Here's the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW0q4yixfC0

Amusingly, some people apparently think the network was trying to censor Skip with the commercials. It's a persecution conspiracy!

I like that Skip remembered to bring out the ever-popular "if he were a Muslim, people wouldn't be attacking his beliefs!" Funny stuff, Skip.

Steven Smith does a good job in refuting it.

Just for laughs, here's Skip Bayless getting humiliated on TV by Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hv2jqFd2-qI

-k

Some could get carried away with the persecution card, like one could get carried with the race card, or the homophobic card, or women abuse card. When a victim of a crime happens to be gay, mainstream media almost always wonders out loud if it could be homophobia. Media is not what it used to be. There is always a slant, in most reports. There's hardly any neutral, unbiased simple news reporting. Even Sun TV is guilty of that, I find. That's why it's hard to trust media for information these days.

One has to do his own "investigative" truth-finding to validate whether the report is, unbiased and accurate.

In my view, if anyone is a designated representative of a company (ie commercials), one should abide by the company policy. After all the company is the one who hired endorsers - for the purpose of improving or accumulating more sales.

Of course the extent of that depends on the stipulations in your contract.

That Geico commercial drill sargeant apparently got canned for saying, "Obama is a socialist," I don't know the full story however. If true, was he persecuted for his belief or ideology? In my view, no.

If your face is associated with a company (like the "faces" of Chanel, Lancombe etc..,) chances are these companies - especially big companies - will stipulate far more stricter or extensive demands on how an endorser should present himself in the public eye. It depends on the contract.

However, persecution does not have to be physical. It does not need to involve violence. Hurting or threatening to hurt someone through other means - such as sales or opportunities otherwise open to everyone, etc, - that you know will make the victim suffer as a result of it, for having exercised his freedom of belief and expression, is persecution.

It becomes more so when those who uttered such threats hold the power to enable the enactment of such threats. And there we also cross over into the bullying aspect of it. When one who wields some power or seeming "strength" forces the other to yield, or else. It's also abuse of power.

What's the difference in concept with a school bully who grabbed the victim's lunch box and ordered the victim to dance or make a fool of himself, etc., or else he wouldn't get his lunch box back?

Moral of this topic is - imho - that, just because mainstream media does not show enough cases of persecution, we shouldn't conclude that therefore persecution does not exist.

Edited August 29, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

Is that how you see it? As my trying to "reason" with betsy? I'm no more trying to reason with her than I am with schizophrenic people on the bus you; I just enjoy the outrage and hypocrisy and claims of superiority flying all around - and pointing it out at times. I enjoy it from all, not just the religious.

So you don't really aim for discussion. Thanks for leting me know.

Anyway, I apologise to everyone, especially to Kimmy for having heavily contributed to getting the topic off course.

Edited August 29, 2012 by betsy

[msj]

Anyway, I apologise to everyone, especially to Kimmy for having heavily contributed to getting the topic off course.

Well, isn't that interesting: Betsy trumps AW.

For the record, I apologize to kimmy for my smallish contributions to taking this thread off topic and look forward to it getting back on track.

[Guest American Woman]

So you don't really aim for discussion. Thanks for leting me know.

"Discussion" and "trying to reason with [you]" are two very different things. I know I have no more chance of "reasoning" with you than I do a rock. Your mind is made up. Clearly. What you believe is true and right for all, and all should be living by it. There is no point in trying to "reason" with you - and if you are trying to pretend that you are here for "discussion" rather than as a platform for your beliefs, sorry, but you haven't fooled me.

Edited August 29, 2012 by American Woman

[betsy]

"Discussion" and "trying to reason with [you]" are two very different things. I know I have no more chance of "reasoning" with you than I do a rock. Your mind is made up. Clearly. What you believe is true and right for all, and all should be living by it. There is no point in trying to "reason" with you - and if you are trying to pretend that you are here for "discussion" rather than as a platform for your beliefs, sorry, but you haven't fooled me.

If deluding yourself makes you feel better....I guess to each his own.

[cybercoma]

If deluding yourself makes you feel better....I guess to each his own.

Really!? You're calling someone else deluded?

[bleeding heart]

However, obviously homosexual sex was considered more wicked than rape of virgins by men (because of the very un-naturalness of sex between same gender in the eyes of God), thus offering his daughters is like choosing the lesser evil?

Oh, boy......

[kimmy]

In another thread, some people are suggesting that whiny atheists ought to grow a thicker skin and quit complaining about prayer being a scheduled part of city council meetings.

In response, I asked: how would Christians feel if other peoples' religion was a scheduled part of council meetings?

Now, thanks to Tulsa, Oklahoma, we can see first hand!

Tulsa has a long-standing tradition of opening council meetings with Christian prayer. Secular groups complained that this amounted to a government endorsement of a religion. After fighting about it for quite some time, Tulsa chose to maintain the policy of opening meetings with religious invocation, but so as to not sanction any particular religion, the invocation is now open to representatives of any and all religions.

Well, sooner or later a non-Christian was going to get a turn, and it happened last week when humanist Dan Nerren delivered the opening invocation.

How did Christians react?

Predictably.

"Personally I think it's a slap in the face to our Christian heritage … our nation and … our state of Oklahoma," she comments. "We are a conservative state, and I think that something like this is meant to be provocative, and it's insulting to me."

(Toni Calvey was a delegate at the RNC last week. Her husband Kevin is a former OK state legislator who just lost his chance to run for Congress this fall.)

The article also includes a handy poll:

I'd wonder who the atheist is praying to. 44.18%

I'd question the courage of city officials to resist political correctness. 32.18%

I'd attend the meeting to voice my protest. 10%

I'd be okay with it. 13.64%

"I'd wonder who the atheist is praying to." Who indeed? Dawkins? Darwin?? STALIN?! SATAN!?!?!

Other Christians were not as offended as Mrs Calvey... just worried:

"I was kind of hesitant on coming down here cause I wasn't for sure what he would say cause it's kind of a prayer and who are you praying to?," said Darren Anderson.

"We need not look above for answers, and instead recognize the proven potential within ourselves and each other to overcome any challenges we may face," said Nerren.

Leaving God out. A message that ironically fueled passions in the audience to bring Him back in.

"I know for myself, it's going to be even more important for me to go home and pray with my family tonight," said Paul Warren.

Indeed... WHO ARE THEY PRAYING TO, if it isn't GOD?!! (?!!)

After hearing such atheist filth about recognizing our own potential to overcome challenges, it is no wonder that poor Mr Warren needed to go home and pray extra-hard with his family.

As an atheist, I feel extremely sorry that Mrs Calvey had to have her face slapped by the terrible affront of having a non-Christian speak at Tulsa city council. And I feel terrible that Mr Warren had to hear such shocking ideas about our potential to overcome challenges. I think .. maybe it is time for us atheists to quit assaulting the poor Christians with that kind of radical, in-your-face confrontation. It's ... it's just too divisive.

-k

[betsy]

In another thread, some people are suggesting that whiny atheists ought to grow a thicker skin and quit complaining about prayer being a scheduled part of city council meetings.

In response, I asked: how would Christians feel if other peoples' religion was a scheduled part of council meetings?

Now, thanks to Tulsa, Oklahoma, we can see first hand!

Tulsa has a long-standing tradition of opening council meetings with Christian prayer. Secular groups complained that this amounted to a government endorsement of a religion. After fighting about it for quite some time, Tulsa chose to maintain the policy of opening meetings with religious invocation, but so as to not sanction any particular religion, the invocation is now open to representatives of any and all religions.

Well, sooner or later a non-Christian was going to get a turn, and it happened last week when humanist Dan Nerren delivered the opening invocation.

How did Christians react?

Predictably.

(Toni Calvey was a delegate at the RNC last week. Her husband Kevin is a former OK state legislator who just lost his chance to run for Congress this fall.)

The article also includes a handy poll:

"I'd wonder who the atheist is praying to." Who indeed? Dawkins? Darwin?? STALIN?! SATAN!?!?!

Other Christians were not as offended as Mrs Calvey... just worried:

Indeed... WHO ARE THEY PRAYING TO, if it isn't GOD?!! (?!!)

After hearing such atheist filth about recognizing our own potential to overcome challenges, it is no wonder that poor Mr Warren needed to go home and pray extra-hard with his family.

As an atheist, I feel extremely sorry that Mrs Calvey had to have her face slapped by the terrible affront of having a non-Christian speak at Tulsa city council. And I feel terrible that Mr Warren had to hear such shocking ideas about our potential to overcome challenges. I think .. maybe it is time for us atheists to quit assaulting the poor Christians with that kind of radical, in-your-face confrontation. It's ... it's just too divisive.

-k

I'm lost. Where is persecution to Christians? What thread are you referring to?

[The_Squid]

I'm lost. Where is persecution to Christians? What thread are you referring to?

Of course you are....

"Personally I think it's a slap in the face to our Christian heritage … our nation and … our state of Oklahoma,"

Good post Kimmy. I can't wait for a Muslim to lead the prayer in Tulsa.... should be good, if the poor person survives...