Jesus Camp

[betsy]

To be blunt, you're making yourself look foolish by trying to equate the off-color comments about Rachel with the kind of detailed graphic violence that Kimveer Gill or the Columbine killers wrote.

-k

Well I don't know. To me, saying, " make her choke on it," gives a vivid picture of someone forcefully ramming those literature down her throat. I wince when PETA describes how ducks' throats are rammed when they make pate'.

Harris was supposed to have said "rip the arms off racists." Now...you'd understand how someone would be so mad about racists when you think of those supremacists burning and lynching blacks. If Harris was not who he turned out to be (a killer)....I too, would not think much of what he said.

But we're talking of a little girl who only gave that 30-second spiel.....I don't think it warrants any reactions so vicious!

They may just be "off-color" to you....but to me, they're not just that.

Besides, they're not talking about an unknown hypothetical girl...this girl is clearly identified. She is not anonymous.

[betsy]

People often joke about smacking politicians, lawyers, celebrities, TV commercial pitch-men, and yes, even door-to-door evangelists. It's not "extreme", it's not an impending warning of a hate-fueled massacre in the making... it's just people expressing their annoyance or frustration or disgust.

-k

Some politicians do get assassinated, don't they? Celebrities like John Lennon do get stabbed.

Some go to the extent of hiring bodyguards.

Anyway....how do you know all of those who commented were joking? Did you see their faces?

[betsy]

I've personally written on many occassions that I would punch Jean Chretien right in the testicles. The RCMP never paid a visit to my house or confiscated my computer. The former PM has not, to my knowledge, started wearing a cup to protect his gonads. You know, maybe normal people just don't get all that worked up about chit-chat on message boards as you do.

-k

Well I don't know if you're being truthful here...so okay I'll assume you are.

But you got me curious. Of all things, why his testicles?

Yes I know normal people don't get all that worked up on message boards....that's what I've been telling you! I reacted to the link you provided...and you got all so steamed up...and all worked up!

You're steamed because your link got a different reaction from what you want to have. Instead, I found those comments and reacted to them instead.

And you're sticking your neck out defending vicious graphic violence aimed at a kid...even though you could see how foolish you sound!

Anyway, whatever...<shaking my head>

[Black Dog]

'd like to stress the particular statements I was responding to... but I don't know how to make multiple boxes in one post.

It's easy. Instead of hitting the "reply" button on the post you wish to respond to, hit "add reply" at the bottom of the page and then copy and paste the text you are responding to between the QUOTE tags. You can repond to multiple posts within one post of your own.

[betsy]

'd like to stress the particular statements I was responding to... but I don't know how to make multiple boxes in one post.

It's easy. Instead of hitting the "reply" button on the post you wish to respond to, hit "add reply" at the bottom of the page and then copy and paste the text you are responding to between the QUOTE tags. You can repond to multiple posts within one post of your own.

Thanks. I'll try that.

[DarkAngel_]

So you judge me by those thread...thus you bestow your own MORAL JUDGEMENT against me based on those opinion. Which you are twisting out of context.

Now I get the picture!

No wonder you feel that sort of paranoia when you are faced-to-faced with a Muslim woman in traditional garb. Because you, yourself, automatically judge others...therefore you assume they judge you!

You don't know me. I think I would know when my child is just being introduced to Allah or the space aliens hiding in some couple's closet...I think I'll know enough when my child's encounter with a Muslim is quite harmless.

I'll totally flip though if my son comes home wearing a red dress and a long wig, with make-up and all...and tells me the couple even gave him a manicure!

So a Muslim talk to my child about Allah...big deal! It'll be just one of many!

I'm sure my child will be coming home from school with a lot of other information that he'd learned from others that he'd ask me about. Sex, homosexuals, alternative lifestyle, etc..,

If you've got a good relationship with your child...and if you encourage and welcome open communication between him and you...you've got nothing to worry about.

At least they make nice conversations at the dinner table after you've exhausted all the pleasantries of "how's your day." You can correct, edit, revise, critique, etc.., all the information your child brings home to you. That's how they learn!

But I surely don't want my child going into ANY STRANGER'S home....religious or non-religious homes, just because it isn't safe anymore. Who knows if it'll turn out to be the house of a Gacy wannabe.

i agree with this, a child develops a mind as well, and good communication can mean that this child will disagree as well as agree, on their own. so you then allow them to grow a moral stature past your own, but does that mean religiously? if so then would your religion change for your child?

The biggest problem with religion in its extremes is that it is unwilling to change, so in turn it makes the extremists in their faith just as inflexible. If the next day, their parents were to say that god was not real, would they resist? 5-6 years ago I would of, So is religion build on their past moral defenses of the church?

These are some defenses I have studied:

Using a super power to defend you, (England)

Gather followers and thwarting non-believers. (Rome)

Put paradoxes in front of odd beliefs (the best trick of the devil is to make you believe he does not exist, est.)

Gain coin from the followers to be involved politically.(USA, money used to put a voice in gov.)

Produce a hoax after a drop in followers.(???might have been in italy???)

Destroy damning documentation. (satanic preist)

Altering scientific proofs to fit agenda. (creation of the metaphorical bible)

Becoming allies of a ‘evil’ empire just because of strength. (the pope and hitler)

Using millions of dollars worth of funds for structure and icons. (morman temple)

Using military action to inspire fear. (given)

Killing non-believers to get others to convert. (also a given)

Becoming friendly when confronted with danger, and disregarding your followers. (idk, will look up.)

I’m sure there are more, but I cannot think of any right now, also I am generalizing all church/religious structurings of faith. If you want I can point out all the events (and there are more then one.) that took place, that are listed.

So is passing down this decadent defense, wrong?

[betsy]

i agree with this, a child develops a mind as well, and good communication can mean that this child will disagree as well as agree, on their own. so you then allow them to grow a moral stature past your own, but does that mean religiously? if so then would your religion change for your child?

Yes in time, the child develops, agreeing and disagreeing. Many a time, as young adults they tend to go the opposite way of what their parents believed, or thinking that they would do theirs differently from their parents. I was such as a teen and a young adult. But later on, as we mature...or get older....of course, depending on the kinds of parents that we've had....some of us would end up gravitating back to those old beliefs that our parents had taught us and agree with them. Thus we begin the cycle again with our own children.

But yes, there is the danger that the child as an adult, would end up shunning our own religion...and fully embracing another...or none at all. As a parent and a Christian, I guess what more can I do? I'd still love him though...and keep on "nagging."

The biggest problem with religion in its extremes is that it is unwilling to change, so in turn it makes the extremists in their faith just as inflexible. If the next day, their parents were to say that god was not real, would they resist? 5-6 years ago I would of, So is religion build on their past moral defenses of the church?

But the faith of any religion should not change. Why should the teachings of your God be made flexible by mere humans...just to suit somebody's want....or to go with the "flow?"

I would say, the laws of the church...those man-made laws, I must stress, can be flexible. But not the teachings or the words of God.

PS.

Blackdog, thanks! I did it!!!

[gerryhatrick]

It's sad to see kids indoctrinated like that.

[Canadian Blue]

Does anybody know if Jesus Camp is playing anywhere in Winnipeg. I've tried looking to see if they are showing it, but haven't come up with anything yet?

[DarkAngel_]

But the faith of any religion should not change. Why should the teachings of your God be made flexible by mere humans...just to suit somebody's want....or to go with the "flow?"

I would say, the laws of the church...those man-made laws, I must stress, can be flexible. But not the teachings or the words of God.

look at this and think...

maybe it says this in the bible, maybe a part of it was to say that god did make us in his image, literally, in that this god is no valid individual, but is a collection of people and objects making up a body of complexes, that for the most part, partake in actions to some main cause that none of us are known.

a collective complex... and the philosophies and art, strife and forms of peace, even are insanity is just a grand projection of these complexes and their purpose, a true collective over-mind of action, without action, good or bad, would there still be life? aggression is apart of our condition, passion is fueling it furiously, but the want to prosper, grow, survive, fight, rest, even to go on with peace! is very strong in our condition.

look at it smart, the god of the bible may be a projection of a true god that forms this complex. but hey, i'm not a seer of gods and please question, or you will not change as fast, don't believe in what we believe, just be smart about it and find means past affliction of the mind.

remember, there's no wrong way to eat a Reese’s

just eat it.

[gnam]

Well I don't know. To me, saying, " make her choke on it," gives a vivid picture of someone forcefully ramming those literature down her throat. I wince when PETA describes how ducks' throats are rammed when they make pate'.

Harris was supposed to have said "rip the arms off racists." Now...you'd understand how someone would be so mad about racists when you think of those supremacists burning and lynching blacks. If Harris was not who he turned out to be (a killer)....I too, would not think much of what he said.

But we're talking of a little girl who only gave that 30-second spiel.....I don't think it warrants any reactions so vicious!

They may just be "off-color" to you....but to me, they're not just that.

Besides, they're not talking about an unknown hypothetical girl...this girl is clearly identified. She is not anonymous.

Hmmm... well, I dunno about this 'make her choke on it' business being all that literal, but every time I here some idiot rambling on 'ad tedium' about that Jesus guy I sorta feel like curb stomping the next long-hair, bearded hippie i see cruising down the boulevard in his sandals, white robes, and blue sash... know what I mean?

While I may not really want to overfeed a young child her jesus pamphlets, you have to admit it's a little creepy when the very picture of cute starts spewing some disgusting nonsense about a wierd daddy in the sky who 'just wants to love on you'... brings to mind some wierd celestial southern-style-family-key-party or somethin'... and yooouuu'rrreee invited. Don't forget to bring that beauty of a husband ya got there. The hmm... "virgin" mary's lookin for a piece of him.

Anyway, face it betsy, 30 year old bible salesmen are annoying... 9 year-olds giving sermons in bowling alleys is a cross between a a monty python skit and a Kafka novel.

That kid doesn't need to be fed her pamphlets, she needs therapy.

[betsy]

look at this and think...

maybe it says this in the bible, maybe a part of it was to say that god did make us in his image, literally, in that this god is no valid individual, but is a collection of people and objects making up a body of complexes, that for the most part, partake in actions to some main cause that none of us are known.

a collective complex... and the philosophies and art, strife and forms of peace, even are insanity is just a grand projection of these complexes and their purpose, a true collective over-mind of action, without action, good or bad, would there still be life? aggression is apart of our condition, passion is fueling it furiously, but the want to prosper, grow, survive, fight, rest, even to go on with peace! is very strong in our condition.

look at it smart, the god of the bible may be a projection of a true god that forms this complex. but hey, i'm not a seer of gods and please question, or you will not change as fast, don't believe in what we believe, just be smart about it and find means past affliction of the mind.

remember, there's no wrong way to eat a Reese’s

just eat it.

Well we can all translate the bible anyway we want...thus we've got this major upheaval in our church. Everyone's trying to do their own translation.

Yes God made us in His image, and gave us free will.

But He also said that He is the WAY....and that HIS WAY is narrow. So He threw us the challenge. Following in His footsteps is no walk in the park.

Therefore there is no way man should bend God's laws just to suit man's own selfish intent of gratification...otherwise God would have indicated that it's just so easy to follow His way. That He knows and He warns of this narrow road leading to His kingdom, along with all the pitfalls along the way...clearly tells that in His view, and His purpose and intent, only those who navigate it well, will succeed.

How well enough? It is for God to say and to judge what is considered a "success" in His view and what is not.

He gave you His message. He gave you the free will to choose.

It is a human want to survive...and yes, I believe that it is also a want to go live in peace. But sometimes as shown throughout history, survival and peace can only be achieved with a fight.

[betsy]

Hmmm... well, I dunno about this 'make her choke on it' business being all that literal, but every time I here some idiot rambling on 'ad tedium' about that Jesus guy I sorta feel like curb stomping the next long-hair, bearded hippie i see cruising down the boulevard in his sandals, white robes, and blue sash... know what I mean?

While I may not really want to overfeed a young child her jesus pamphlets, you have to admit it's a little creepy when the very picture of cute starts spewing some disgusting nonsense about a wierd daddy in the sky who 'just wants to love on you'... brings to mind some wierd celestial southern-style-family-key-party or somethin'... and yooouuu'rrreee invited. Don't forget to bring that beauty of a husband ya got there. The hmm... "virgin" mary's lookin for a piece of him.

Anyway, face it betsy, 30 year old bible salesmen are annoying... 9 year-olds giving sermons in bowling alleys is a cross between a a monty python skit and a Kafka novel.

That kid doesn't need to be fed her pamphlets, she needs therapy.

Hey, what can I say? Just as I thought that it is not compelling argument you truly seek , as you claimed, to see "reason" or "truth." Your mind is fully made up.

So what's the point of us butting heads.

Just in this incident of Rachel being thrown all these vicious comments depicting graphic violence...seems just okay with you simply because she gave out pamphlets about religion...only shows how clouded your perspective is. I guess it was her pamphlet and her faith that made her fair game.

There's only one clear message I'm getting from this thread: for the talks of tolerance and concern about violence towards anything (from women to children to animals, to homosexuals...etc)...it must extend to only those that a certain group of self-righteous people approve of.

If something violent should happen to Rachel or to anyone who gave out pamphlet and words of faith, it must be because, she or they had asked for it.

Make it two clear messages: fanaticism and warped reasonings? Non-religious folks are just as bad!

As if it's not confusing enough with all the old established religions around!

Perhaps the whole world needs a therapy with all these contradictions and confusions about the enlightened "doctrines" that got into the mix?

I mean if hearing the word "Jesus" could elicit this strong emotion in you...which you said:

"but every time I here some idiot rambling on 'ad tedium' about that Jesus guy I sorta feel like curb stomping the next long-hair, bearded hippie i see cruising down the boulevard in his sandals, white robes, and blue sash.." I guess it's you who do need therapy! Badly.

Enlightened. What a cute word! So very like now-ish!

Was it inspired by the old-ish, "Hallelujah! I see the LIGHT!"

Gnam, you'll never bend. And neither would I.

You've got free wills....and you live in a democratic society.

So, whatever!

[kimmy]

Just in this incident of Rachel being thrown all these vicious comments depicting graphic violence...seems just okay with you simply because she gave out pamphlets about religion...only shows how clouded your perspective is. I guess it was her pamphlet and her faith that made her fair game.

There's only one clear message I'm getting from this thread: for the talks of tolerance and concern about violence towards anything (from women to children to animals, to homosexuals...etc)...it must extend to only those that a certain group of self-righteous people approve of.

If something violent should happen to Rachel or to anyone who gave out pamphlet and words of faith, it must be because, she or they had asked for it.

Betsy, if you sincerely believe that little Rachel is in real danger of violence from the people who made these comments, or if you really believe that the people who wrote those comments are comparable to the Columbine killers, then it's your civic and moral duty to contact the authorities before it's too late. Contact the FBI and tell them know about the comments that have you so worried, and let us know what they tell you.

Of course, if you don't actually believe that these are real threats of violence or that the authors are Columbine killers in the making, then please spare us the histrionics.

Oooh, ooh, wait, didn't the Columbine killers and the Dawson College guy write about hurting people? uh, yeah... about that. Harris, Kliebold, Kimveer Gill... these guys didn't write about slapping people. They wrote about shooting, stabbing, dismembering. They wrote about guns, knives, and bombs. Real psychopaths don't write about slapping people or praying for them to trip on a rock.

Why aren't the rest of us getting all worked up over the comments? Is it because Rachel is a Christian and nobody except you cares if somebody hurts a Christian? No. It's because nobody except you thinks the comments are real. Sorry, but I'm completely unconvinced by what you're saying.

If the same comments had been directed at lawyers or politicians or telemarketers, I doubt that you'd have batted an eye or taken them seriously at all... and I suspect that that the only reason you're making a big deal about these particular comments is that it suits your purposes, not because you think they're sincere.

But, as I said, if you're sincerely convinced otherwise, you should be talking to the authorities, not to me.

And I don't believe that there's any particular amount of anti-Christian violence in North America. I mean, in the first century Christians were thrown to the lions... if some trash-talk on the internet is the worst they have to worry about nowadays, I'd say things have improved quite dramatically. I've never heard of a Christian getting beaten up for spreading the word. Some people who knock on doors-- repo men, bill collectors, social services agents, for instance-- get the crap kicked out of them pretty frequently. I don't think being a Christian is nearly as dangerous as it was back in the days of Nero, but perhaps I'm just not aware of all the anti-Christian violence in our society. If you can provide some evidence about Christians getting hurt or killed for their beliefs here in present-day North America, I'd be very interested to hear about it.

So, we've seen these videos that show a camp where they're training kids to be fanatics, and a little girl whose dad has trained her to proselytize and hand out tracts, and woman who says she wants Christian kids to be as fanatical about Jesus as the suicide bombers are about Islam. And the message that I got from this is (as I posted near the start of this thread) that it's a good reminder that not all fanatics wear pyjamas and beards and funny hats.

-k

[betsy]

Of course, if you don't actually believe that these are real threats of violence or that the authors are Columbine killers in the making, then please spare us the histrionics.

Funny how suddenly you can casually dismiss this as mere "histrionics". A group of people gleefully in quite a festive mood fantasizing in graphic violent details what they'd like to do to a littel girl. I wonder how many parties started out so innocently, until they got into a banter about what they'd like to do to blacks...and what blacks deserved to get...that the festive mood had become a "coon-hunting" party?

Rachel's got a face, Kimmy. She's got a name.

Mind you, I am not really familiar with your other opinions on other matters so I don't know where you stand on a lot of other things.

But I wonder if you'd still dismiss it as "histrionics" if we change the name of Rachel into "gay."

Like if they say:

"I'd love to slap a gay senseless when he comes cruisin' around." or...

"If a gay apporaches and propositions me, I'd make him choke on his condoms." or...

"God, please help that gay smash his face on a rock."

If you really stop and think about it...what I'm on about has nothing to do about religion at all.

It is about the intolerance coming from a group that's supposed to be the champion of tolerance.

I'm holding up the mirror to your face. I'm showing you how hypocritical some people are.

I don't want to see anybody hurt or anybody threatened in the same way....whether they're gay or midgets or women or evengelists etc..,

You could've just said nothing...after all, I'm reacting to THOSE comments. As far as I know, you didn't say anything as such in this thread. So why you came all steamed up and puffing and had gone all HYPERSENSITIVE on ME instead....beats me.

Why, were you harboring the same dark fantacies thus you are acting so defensive?

Real psychopaths don't write about slapping people or praying for them to trip on a rock.

-k

I just love the way you sound like a voice of authority on psychopaths.

How do you know?

One thing I know though: it ain't normal to go ballistic over something so trivial.

Why aren't the rest of us getting all worked up over the comments?

Pardon me, Kimmy...but it is YOU who's getting all worked up over MY opinion.

All I did was point out those comments and voiced my outrage. You've gone all out with both barrels blazing DEFENDING them!

Just because people don't make any comments does not mean they defend those comments as well. I am not sure how they truly feel...but at least they had the good sense to stay out of a loosing argument!

Have you noticed how many among the posters here touched that very particular argument? It was only you who's actually defending them...until Gnam here decided to become your little side-kick and joined you in that hole...that's of course, getting deeper and deeper... Bwahaha-ha-ha-ha!

If Gnam and you, whom I assume are both adults...cannot find it in yourselves to use the "ignore" button in your systems...and let yourself get all worked up by little girls giving you 30-second spiels, well I'd hate to see how you guys managed those other solicitors, who mostly not only give you a pitch, but also try to get private information from you!

I noticed though, you both got one thing in common: you two seem to have a lot of anger in you.

I can arrange for all of us to get together and have a bible study...at your convenience. So how about it, girls?

You might find that faith sometimes has a very calming effect.

[kimmy]

But I wonder if you'd still dismiss it as "histrionics" if we change the name of Rachel into "gay."

Like if they say:

"I'd love to slap a gay senseless when he comes cruisin' around." or...

"If a gay apporaches and propositions me, I'd make him choke on his condoms." or...

"God, please help that gay smash his face on a rock."

I'd say the same thing. I'd say the comments were off-color, pathetic, and bad attempts at humor. I'd say that I don't think they represent a real threat of violence.

And if you attempted to compare the comments to spousal abuse or Columbine shooters, I'd say it was histrionics.

If you really stop and think about it...what I'm on about has nothing to do about religion at all.

It is about the intolerance coming from a group that's supposed to be the champion of tolerance.

I'm holding up the mirror to your face. I'm showing you how hypocritical some people are.

I don't want to see anybody hurt or anybody threatened in the same way....whether they're gay or midgets or women or evengelists etc..,

I don't want to see anybody hurt either.

You could've just said nothing...after all, I'm reacting to THOSE comments. As far as I know, you didn't say anything as such in this thread. So why you came all steamed up and puffing and had gone all HYPERSENSITIVE on ME instead....beats me.

I'm taking issue with you because you're trying to use these comments, which while pathetic, are idle chatter... and trying to compare them to spousal assault and Columbine shooters. That's retarded, but that's what you're doing. Why? I guess you're trying to try to show that Christians are persecuted. Hey, if that's what you believe, why don't you try and find some real information to support that theory instead of making a fool of youself by continuing to make ridiculous comparisons of harmless internet banter to real violence.

Why, were you harboring the same dark fantacies thus you are acting so defensive?

It's pathetic that you have to resort to an insinuation like that. You're truly classless.

Real psychopaths don't write about slapping people or praying for them to trip on a rock.

I just love the way you sound like a voice of authority on psychopaths.

How do you know?

You were the one who brought the Columbine shooters into this thread by comparing the comments on the youtube page to stuff Eric Harris wrote before Columbine. And apparently, you did so without actually having a clue what you were talking about. A little research reveals that Harris's website and blog included:

-instructions for making explosives

-death threats that were serious enough to be investigated by police.

-a hit-list of people at his school.

-a running count of how many guns he owned, and how many pipe-bombs he had built.

-frequent anti-social rantings and talk of killing people.

Kimveer Gill, the Dawson College guy, posted dozens of photographs of himself posing with his commando rifle and wrote frequently of his admiration for the Columbine shooters.

So, like, what's the rational basis for comparing comments about slapping a kid to these guys? It's ridiculous hyperbole.

One thing I know though: it ain't normal to go ballistic over something so trivial.

Why aren't the rest of us getting all worked up over the comments?

Pardon me, Kimmy...but it is YOU who's getting all worked up over MY opinion.

So why is it that you've posted no less than 12 messages about the youtube comments in this thread, compared them to spousal abuse, compared them to the Columbine shooters, and now signed up at Youtube so that you can argue with people about the comments on that message board as well. You seem to be, as you yourself said, "outraged".

So with all due respect, I would suggest that it is you who is worked up.

Me, I'm just frustrated and disappointed at myself for wasting so much time trying to reason with somebody who'd compare internet chit-chat to spousal abuse and can't see any difference between selling religion and selling vacuum-cleaners.

All I did was point out those comments and voiced my outrage. You've gone all out with both barrels blazing DEFENDING them!

I haven't defended the comments. I described them as pathetic, way back in message #69.

I've not said a single word to support the comments about hurting little Rachel. All I've said is that I think that they are not a sincere expression of violent intent, but rather exaggeration with the intent of humor or expressing annoyance.

And I've said that your attempts to equate these comments with spousal battery or the rantings of murderers are sheer idiocy.

Just because people don't make any comments does not mean they defend those comments as well. I am not sure how they truly feel...but at least they had the good sense to stay out of a loosing argument!

Well, if you ask people here on the message board (or anybody with an IQ over about 40, for that matter...) I think you'll find that very few people agree with your effort to compare the youtube comments to the rantings of mass murderers.

Have you noticed how many among the posters here touched that very particular argument? It was only you who's actually defending them...until Gnam here decided to become your little side-kick and joined you in that hole...that's of course, getting deeper and deeper... Bwahaha-ha-ha-ha!

And just to make sure I'm clear on this, I don't defend the comments at all. I just think your efforts to inflate them into warning signs of a massacre are ridiculous. The comments, while in bad taste, are just internet chit-chat. Trying to inflate them into real threats of violence is ridiculous. You're making yourself a parody of the politically correct zealots who consider bad jokes to be hate-crimes. You probably can't even see the irony of the position you're fighting for.

The fact that more people haven't jumped in to argue the point with you is probably because they were smart enough to recall the adage that if you argue with an idiot, bystanders might mistake you for one. Sadly, I wish I'd had the sense to heed that advice.

If Gnam and you, whom I assume are both adults...cannot find it in yourselves to use the "ignore" button in your systems...

Using the "ignore" button to deal with annoying people spouting idiocy? That's an excellent idea. I'll try it.

Bye, betsy.

-k

{ps: Bwahahaha-ha-haha yourself, Einstein. }

[DarkAngel_]

Well we can all translate the bible anyway we want...thus we've got this major upheaval in our church. Everyone's trying to do their own translation.

Yes God made us in His image, and gave us free will.

But He also said that He is the WAY....and that HIS WAY is narrow. So He threw us the challenge. Following in His footsteps is no walk in the park.

Therefore there is no way man should bend God's laws just to suit man's own selfish intent of gratification...otherwise God would have indicated that it's just so easy to follow His way. That He knows and He warns of this narrow road leading to His kingdom, along with all the pitfalls along the way...clearly tells that in His view, and His purpose and intent, only those who navigate it well, will succeed.

How well enough? It is for God to say and to judge what is considered a "success" in His view and what is not.

He gave you His message. He gave you the free will to choose.

It is a human want to survive...and yes, I believe that it is also a want to go live in peace. But sometimes as shown throughout history, survival and peace can only be achieved with a fight.

put that aside, i think you may already know that i see that as artifice. as a human being, there is no thing past man that i have seen, so try not to show me phantasms. use your relince, the logic and reason, get rid of the joy bask, go back from in front of god, show me that. do you feel fear in front of god? of death? no place in heaven? to be damned or forsaken? you say you have joy in your belief, but joy is dull if your mind is a trick, once the trick goes to happy, then what your left with is mental seclusion, isolation, condescendence. 'i am' is our words, we need to realize that, 'we are' that way we can live in the knowing, the knoledgable, and the evolved.

do you look at a human and say, "mere human"? indeed you do, i heard you say it, stop insulting your humanity, imbrace the good and bad, learn a truth in you and your belief will need not be expressed on a past culture icon, but in true image, something based on reality, emotional response, and pure good old human imagination.

in my thought, religion was not past the minds of those in that age, and those who believed it, thought fly’s came from meat! though god speaks of teachings, we must pull ourselves to a point of humanity none the less. my point is that more people have gone to doubt parts of their faith, not to despair, but to hope, a wish or want for something else, if god gave us free will, then would he let us go our own way?

i don't even belief in this god, but i believe in you, in humans, and their evolution, revolution!

a priests way of teaching a child not to believe in science, "if there is such thing as evolution, then why havent we changed?" this offends me, my little brother is being forced this by the church, and others i've seen believe what they want, and to hell with consequence. my point is that we HAVE evolved, we are taller, stronger, brain mass has increased, some deformations have become common place, morals are changing, and twins are more common. because of the hope science gives, and the cold blows reliogion has swung, less and less people go to church, i asked around and many do not agree with the churches morals, some found it offensive. others just would of done it another way, but some say, 'but god' that of which was said a millenia ago.

read no book and call it truth, especially if it was written by men of the past, i say now lets look to the men of the future.

[gnam]

If you really stop and think about it...what I'm on about has nothing to do about religion at all.

It is about the intolerance coming from a group that's supposed to be the champion of tolerance.

I'm holding up the mirror to your face. I'm showing you how hypocritical some people are.

Whoa who said anything about tolerance. Tolerance is the territory of you 'turn the other cheek' types. I tried talking to you about reason and about how your faith depends on reason. However, reason is not necessarily about tolerance, sometimes it is a tyrant.

I don't want to see anybody hurt or anybody threatened in the same way....whether they're gay or midgets or women or evengelists etc..,

Yeah, you and everybody else. No one here has really suggested that they would like to see Rachel hurt either... just that what she represents (and like it or not, she or her parents signed off on her appearance in the movie thereby permitting her to appear as a symbol, not just rachel) incites a certain disgust in people, a disgust that incites violent thoughts, though not necessarily violent actions.

You could've just said nothing...after all, I'm reacting to THOSE comments. As far as I know, you didn't say anything as such in this thread. So why you came all steamed up and puffing and had gone all HYPERSENSITIVE on ME instead....beats me.

Why, were you harboring the same dark fantacies thus you are acting so defensive?

Well Betsy, I think it was your rhetoric that inflamed Kimmy's sense of advocacy. She seemed to have been arguing that you were unreasonably insinuating that some of the comments from other posters were on a level with the views of the KKK or some nonsense like that. People don't have a problem with Rachel's christianity or with rachel. The revulsion that people feel lies in her role in the film as a whole, the film in which it is proposed that young children be encouraged to radicalism, "a radical faith on par with that of the radical Islam." or something like that.

It was only you who's actually defending them...until Gnam here decided to become your little side-kick and joined you in that hole...that's of course, getting deeper and deeper... Bwahaha-ha-ha-ha!

Easy there betsy old girl... No one is anyone's sidekick. I have read a number of Kimmy's posts, I often enjoy doing so and often agree with some of the things that she writes. Secondly, I'm not really defending anyone, rather, I've been attacking your position which I won't re-hash here (your position or mine).

If Gnam and you, whom I assume are both adults...cannot find it in yourselves to use the "ignore" button in your systems...and let yourself get all worked up by little girls giving you 30-second spiels, well I'd hate to see how you guys managed those other solicitors, who mostly not only give you a pitch, but also try to get private information from you!

Well I don't use the ignore button because that would indicate a profound lack of respect for you and others who have a right to and should be heard, regardless of the fact that I think you are full of BS some of the time. Also, since you post things on a "discussion" forum it seems reasonable that others read and comment on what's said... otherwise this would be a sermon forum.

I noticed though, you both got one thing in common: you two seem to have a lot of anger in you.

Not anger, intolerance for unmitigated stupidity.

I can arrange for all of us to get together and have a bible study...at your convenience. So how about it, girls?

You wanna talk bible?? Cool, start the thread... I'm there

You might find that faith sometimes has a very calming effect.

I guess if you wanna call those crazy red-faced guys on TV screaming about the devil in our midst "calming" that would be your perogative. Personally I find a nice bowl of Crack just knocks me out for the night... diff strokes I guess huh?

Let me know about the bible thread...

[BubberMiley]

I think both you guys are just showing off to poor Betsy how you can fit multiple quotes into one post.

[gnam]

I think both you guys are just showing off to poor Betsy how you can fit multiple quotes into one post.

Sorry, I'll try and restrain myself... though I thought she had picked up the hang of doing so reasonably well.

g-

[DarkAngel_]

I think both you guys are just showing off to poor Betsy how you can fit multiple quotes into one post.

is that me included?

[betsy]

Gnam,

In your previous posts, you were not debating about that particular argument that Kimmy and I got stuck in for so long - vicious comments depicting graphic violence towards a child, - but your main thrust or focus was more into ethics and my position about the whole thing.

But on your post #161, you suddenly shifted gear and had joined Kimmy in her argument, and tried to justify those comments by stating the following.

every time I here some idiot rambling on 'ad tedium' about that Jesus guy I sorta feel like curb stomping the next long-hair, bearded hippie i see cruising down the boulevard in his sandals, white robes, and blue sash... know what I mean?

And you suggested the little girl needed therapy?

The little girl is doing fine....if she had been doing what she's been doing for sometime, I'm willing to bet she'd met people such as those who had commented...and most likely experienced some negative and put-down reactions. At least she seemed to have a good grip on handling rejections.

For her age and size, she seemed to have her head firmly levelled between those shoulders....which sharply contrasts the way some adults are dealing with this trivial matter of getting approached by her.

So she's spreading the word, but so what? What she's doing right now, making cold contacts and giving pitches, can become valuable tools in the field of sales later on.

My over-all response about this whole topic, a subject matter that criticizes the "fanatical" aspect of the Christian religion was to show the other side's reflection in the mirror. The parallel. The hypocrisy. The prejudice.

Liberal-thinking is as much a religion for it seeks to indoctrinized. And it harbors the same kind of zealotry, blindness, extremism and fanaticism...just like any other religion.

What more perfect picture of wilfull blindness and zealotry than that expressed by some comments, from that link and on this thread.

And to think that practically the same people who embrace this liberal-thinking are the same ones who champion tolerance.

I wouldn't say Christians are being persecuted. Not yet, anyway. But it makes one take a long hard look when a little girl named Rachel is being joked about in a forum....as an object in graphic violent fantasies.

And as I pointed out, she's not just a hypothetical figure. She's got a face and a name.

In a way it was childish the way Kimmy and I carried on with that one particular aspect.

I guess my statement about the "ignore button in your systems" was misunderstood. I meant your own capabilities to handle irritants in your everyday lives.

Bottom line in the ensuing arguments, is our freedom of choice. No one is forcing anything on anyone.

[betsy]

Btw, I'm not sure about this, but wasn't it mentioned somewhere that it's not advisable having a lot of multiple boxes in one post? Didn't Greg advice us to split them up if they're long?

[BubberMiley]

Btw, I'm not sure about this, but wasn't it mentioned somewhere that it's not advisable having a lot of multiple boxes in one post? Didn't Greg advice us to split them up if they're long?

I think he said if there was a long quote from the previous post, to cut the quote down to the relevant points you're commenting on.

[betsy]

read no book and call it truth, especially if it was written by men of the past, i say now lets look to the men of the future.

Which part of the future?