Anti-Bullying Speaker Curses Christian Teens

reply to post by Annee


I never said he was new to me. I said I was busy looking it up. I knew he was in wikipedia. But who cares? You seem to think I am obligated to answer your questions immediately as you must feel that self-important. It just never occurred to you I might be busy with something other than your immediate demands.

Originally posted by RandomEsotericScreenname
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

Are you against homosexuality and gay marriage or not?

Simple question. Yes or no?

Stop with this line of prosecution. It is where you have been heading all along isn't it? This thread is not about believing in gay marriage, it is about the actions of Savage.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Why the need for people posing like christians if yuo are doing a perfect job yourself in making them look bad?

Answer the question, yes, or no.

And ask me the question.

Stop with this line of prosecution. It is where you have been heading all along isn't it? This thread is not about believing in gay marriage, it is about the actions of Savage.

That's what you make it about. Savage is not the problem in the first place.

Bigotry is.

You still refuse to answer the question?

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

I do not care what they do with each other as long as they don't try to indoctrinate innocent children in their quest for equality. That being said, this thread is about how he treated a group of Christians.

OH!

The "Protect the Children" rant again.

Children respond to Love and Nurturing. They don't care if someone is attracted to same sex.

Yes, that is exactly right. And Savage demonstrated a blatant attack on Christian youth.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

Yes, that is exactly right. And Savage demonstrated a blatant attack on Christian youth.

Please describe the blatant attack on christian youth in a factual matter.

Originally posted by RyanFromCan

Originally posted by Eurisko2012

Originally posted by Stormdancer777

The Dan Savage performance was disrespectful and selfish.

It's on YouTube. Now everybody knows his true colors.

The attitude, bigotry and hate spewed by those masquerading as "christians" wile perverting the Holy Bible as a tool of hate and abuse, are disrespectful and selfish.

The are many videos of Dan on YouTube, his methods are well documented, as is the manufactured outrage by the close minded types, Dan Savages "true colors" are quite acceptable to the vast majority of "normal" people, pretty much too but those who pervert the bible as a tool of hate and abuse, and run around making a bad name of Christians by pretending to be one.

How about quantifying this rant of ignorance.
How many Christians in America?
How many wear masks??
How many pervert the bible??
How do they pervert the bible?? (quotes and numbers preferred here)
What does the meat head that disrespected the CHILDREN Quote from the bible as his rant "of hate and abuse"??

reply to post by RandomEsotericScreenname


I never brought up gay marriage in this thread, you did. That is a fact you cannot deny. Suddenly you decided to make this about gay marriage and not about abusive language at a high school campus. I'm guessing you thought it would make a good tactic. More Alinsky stuff.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


I asked you a simple question, it doesn't matter whatt you brought up exactly, answer the question.

Are you against homsexuality and gay marriage?

Yes or no?

What matters is why he was there in the first place.

Originally posted by RandomEsotericScreenname
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

I asked you a simple question, it doesn't matter whatt you brought up exactly, answer the question.

Are you against homsexuality and gay marriage?

Yes or no?

What matters is why he was there in the first place.

I am neither for or against it. That was the point of my post on Buddhism and the Middle Way. I stated I do not care what they do. He was supposedly there to talk about not bullying. Was it a journalistic conference on gay marriage? No, it was not.

Now at this point you are just diverting this into a pro or anti gay issue, when the thread is about inappropriately targeting Christians.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


So you agree that people that are condemning homosexuality and are against gay marriage, based on segments of the bible, are wrong, and in fact bigots, and that what he said about those people hypocrytically using the bible to justify their beliefs, was spot on?

You must agree with that, if you are not against it like you just said.

So why were you making a problem out of it earlier?

Tell me.

Now at this point you are just diverting this into a pro or anti gay issue, when the thread is about inappropriately targeting Christians.

No, anti gay sentiment is at the core of this issue. the fact that you interprete this like he was targetting christians is a testiment of that.

Originally posted by RandomEsotericScreenname
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

So you agree that people that are condemning homosexuality and are against gay marriage, based on segments of the bible, are wrong, and in fact bigots, and that what he said about those people hypocrytically using the bible to justify their beliefs, was spot on?

You must agree with that, if you are not against it like you just said.

So why were you making a problem out of it earlier?

Tell me.

What you mean here is that no one here has a right to defend any student's right not to be bullied by a crusader without being accused of being anti gay or whatever other label you want to put people into.

And this is exactly what you did to me last night by following me into u2u and making all these kinds of accusations of me.

Originally posted by lordgrrl
reply to post by Partygirl

 

Dan Savage is disgusting. He's been working very hard for quite a long time at subverting normal human morality (he might even be a bit proud of that). It's easy for some open-minded type of people to fall for his nonsense, because he frames it with "acceptance" and "understanding". If anyone has read his column, which has been around far longer than this "anti-bullying" meme - then you know he is very into fetishizing everything and anything - he thinks that as long as someone's sexual fetish isn't inflicted on anyone who's unwilling (unless they're willfully unwilling, etc) then there's nothing wrong with it. Fetishization has been a huge help in our general devolution. Anything natural has been subverted and fetishized, and the unnatural reigns supreme.
It also offends me that this supposed "anti-bullying" effort is mainly about telling young male homosexuals that "it gets better". I'm a straight female who was bullied and harassed for being outside the mainstream, and I would have loved to hear from adults that "it gets better" when I was a young teen, however, I am not the target audience of this campaign. I do believe that gay teens deserve our love and assistance, as do gay adults, and straight adults, and anyone loving and honest - however it is VERY suspect when dishonest and amoral people are involved in such a "helpful" movement.

Normal human morality is not using and following the bible selectively, and perverting it into a tool of hate, bigotry and abuse. Christ also taught up to be accepting and understanding, did you miss that part in your selective application of the bible as well? Fetishes are not only the realm of the gay, it is a mute point, what is that biblical saying about throwing stones again? I am sorry you were bullied, but so was I, yet I did not use it and let it fester in me until I turned it into the driving force to do the same to other people.It does getter better, but you have to work at it as much as anyone else, it does not just fall into your lap, the first step is to end the vicious circle of bullying, and you don't end that vicious circle by bullying other people with the excuse that you were bullied. you may no subscribe to the "target" group as you put it, but that does not change the fact that you are condoning the actions of the "target group".

Originally posted by Eurisko2012

Originally posted by yuppa
reply to post by RyanFromCan

 

If the man made a sincere apology i am sure they would,but he is just protecting his revenue stream now. If he gets to much exposure he will lose out on speaking engagements and more money. How about when he apologizes he actually does it in person to those people who walked out and says he is sorry. Then Id beleive he was sincere.

Is Dan Savage "sorry" about the rant or is Dan Savage "sorry" he got caught on YouTube?

We all know Dan Savage isn't sorry at all. Watch the video yourself.

He smeared the Holy Bible, cursed like a demon and enjoyed himself doing it.

There is no way to spin it any other way.

Personally, I would not have a problem if Dan Savage was sorry that there are so many pseudo-"christians" who selectively pervert the bible as a tool of hate.

He did not smear the Holy Bible, he pointed out how a certain radical element of society selectively abuse the teachings n the bible to promote hate and abuse.

Dan Savage used language you find in every day, on TV, radio, and the halls of your local high school, stop manufacturing outrage at the language you probably use yourself in regular conversation.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

What you mean here is that no one here has a right to defend any student's right not to be bullied by a crusader without being accused of being anti gay or whatever other label you want to put people into.

You were clearly saying he was attacking the bible before, want me to dig up your qoutes?

If you have nothing against homsexuality and gay marriage, there is no reason for you to say he was attacking the bible and the hypocrisy in those that justify their hate with the bible, cause you would have to agree with his reasoning.

So you must be lying somewhere here, or else your statements don't add up.

No student was bullied, cause the students you are refering to were not present, they had walked out and were gone.

reply to post by RyanFromCan


You are applying moral relativity to Christ's teaching of acceptance and forgiveness. The two are not the same. I think you need to go back to the drawing board of what Christ teaches. He stated he came NOT to CHANGE the law. He also said :

King James 2000 Bible

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled
(©2003)

Matthew 5:18

Atheism leads most Secular Humanists to adopt ethical relativism - the belief that no absolute moral code exists, and therefore man must adjust his ethical standards in each situation according to his own judgment.[10] If God does not exist, then He cannot establish an absolute moral code. Humanist Max Hocutt says that human beings "may, and do, make up their own rules... Morality is not discovered; it is made."[11]
Secular Humanism, then, can be defined as a religious worldview based on atheism, naturalism, evolution, and ethical relativism. But this definition is merely the tip of the iceberg.

www.christiananswers.net...

Originally posted by SisyphusRide
reply to post by RandomEsotericScreenname

 

yawn... I am talking about the word "marriage" it would seem some can not get love off the mind without even using that word to define it!

I wonder why?

it makes no sense to me to use a Christian word to define what they want when it clearly goes against Christian values... even a neutral observer should be able to tell us that?

I mean why even used the "English" word for it... English is a Christian language by the way, it is very hard to get Jesus of your mind because you are to "speak" the Word of God... which has been written and which has now been done (because you speak and type in English)

do the aggressive gay marriage supporters not have enough of an education to realize this even?

why use the Christian definition of matrimony if it is clearly against their views? could it be because they can not think around it... because God and Jesus has been imprinted on everything they do and speak... or are they doing it on purpose? Personally I do not think it is the later... there is just no escape from Gods Son and his Word.

simply call it something "new" that's what english language does... it invents and creates (har har I said "Creates") new words.

get with the program people, and please remember... we have separation of Church and State in the united states... "we the people are to deliberate this on our own at the public level"

edit on 30-4-2012 by SisyphusRide because: (no reason given)

You have confused marriage and holy matrimony, a common thing amongst those who pretend to know what they are talking about.

English is a West Germanic language that originated from the Anglo-Frisian dialects brought to Britain by Germanic invaders from various parts of what is now northwest Germany and the Netherlands. Initially, Old English was a diverse group of dialects, reflecting the varied origins of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms of England. One of these dialects, Late West Saxon, eventually came to dominate.

The English language underwent extensive change in the Middle Ages. Written Old English of AD 1000 is similar in vocabulary and grammar to other old Germanic languages such as Old High German and Old Norse, and completely unintelligible to modern speakers, while the modern language is already largely recognisable in written Middle English of AD 1400. The transformation was caused by two further waves of invasion: the first by speakers of the Scandinavian branch of the Germanic language family, who conquered and colonized parts of Britain in the 8th and 9th centuries; the second by the Normans in the 11th century, who spoke Old Norman and ultimately developed an English variety of this called Anglo-Norman. A large proportion of the modern English vocabulary comes directly from Anglo-Norman.

Close contact with the Scandinavians resulted in a significant grammatical simplification and lexical enrichment of the Anglo-Frisian core of English. However, these changes had not reached South West England by the 9th century AD, where Old English was developed into a full-fledged literary language. The Norman invasion occurred in 1066, and when literary English rose anew in the 13th century, it was based on the speech of London, much closer to the centre of Scandinavian settlement. Technical and cultural vocabulary was largely derived from Old Norman, with particularly heavy influence in the church, the courts, and government. With the coming of the Renaissance, as with most other developing European languages such as German and Dutch, Latin and Ancient Greek supplanted Norman and French as the main source of new words. Thus, English developed into very much a "borrowing" language with an enormously disparate vocabulary.

Source

The English language is not a "christian" language, if you were going to call any language "Christian", it would be Latin, there is a reason many Churches still give mass in Latin, and it is that reason, the ministers of the church were considered the educated, Latin was the language of the educated, English was the language of the commoner.

reply to post by RandomEsotericScreenname


He clearly does not believe in the bible, but was using it as a tool, a weapon to bludgeon Christian teens, in some odd effort to try and convince them to come his way. I believe that was the point I was trying to make. So, yes in that fashion he was attacking the teachings of the bible and those who follow it. Or he might have been using the Christian bible example to make an example of the Christians in front of their secular peers. Perhaps both. Using ridicule to accomplish a goal is not so far fetched is it. It is part of the Alinsky way.

Originally posted by yuppa
reply to post by SisyphusRide

 

Dude go to my post on the previous page. Marriage is not just a Christian word. The greeks used it,theRomans used it before they got religion(aka Christianity) Its not just a "christian" thing. Seriously and almost all of it is MAn/Woman but personally i would not care if someone married a rock. Its their body,their choice,and I have no right telling them what to do and no desire to tell them what to do either.

Many confuse the civil concept of marriage with the Christian/religious concept of "Holy Matrimony", they are ignorant to their own faith's teaching, it is quite common actually, and a sign of their lack of knowledge about their own faith. Generally, it is the same people who cherry pick the bible, and use it selectively to promote hate that do this.

Originally posted by RyanFromCan

Personally, I would not have a problem if Dan Savage was sorry that there are so many pseudo-"christians" who selectively pervert the bible as a tool of hate.

And here is another lovely interpretation Christians used to justify enslavement of people with dark skin.

God does not interpret - - Man does.

There are many interpretations of the bible and its meanings. No Christian is forced to choose the condemnation interpretation of homosexuals. Christians can choose any of the other interpretations.

It is by individual choice which interpretation each Christian chooses.

'The Curse of Ham': Slavery and the Old Testament

December 15, 2003

The Book of Genesis records an instance of Noah cursing his son Ham's descendants to be slaves. Although there is no biblical evidence that Ham was the "father" of African peoples, various Jewish, Christian and Islamic writers came to believe that he was, and their association helped to justify centuries of African enslavement. NPR's Tavis Smiley talks to author David Goldenberg about his new book, The Curse of Ham: Race and Slavery in Early Judaism, Christianity and Islam, which looks at how a misinterpreted Bible story has been used to justify centuries of African slavery. www.npr.org...

Originally posted by SisyphusRide


English is the most efficient and the most expressive spoken language on the planet though so it must be doing something right..

I guess the atheist, the satanist and even the Christians who support or can wrap their brain around Gay marriage somehow can just start a whole new language? or just simply make up a new word, which would seem alot more simple because it is done all the time.

the technicalities our our language do not support gay marriage if one does not want to overlook or dissect and debate it.

English is not the most efficient language on the planet, there are too many words that mean multiple things, and too many words that mean the same thing. I don't know where you got this idea, but it is completely corrupted, like many of you "other" beliefs

---------------

homosexuals are one thing... I say live and let live, but if they want their sexual union recognized by the rest of the english speaking world as marriage then I say no and based simply on the statements I am making. I don't like seeing it myself and I do not think the kids like seeing it either... they don't know what to make of it because it is not natural and I have witnessed this first hand.

I don't care about gays... but I do care about them appearing to be atheistic or even satanist to the Christian community by using the Christians word for it... it is disrupting the masses for a reason ya know?

Love is defined in many ways...

edit on 30-4-2012 by SisyphusRide because: (no reason given)

Again, you have shown your hand by confusing marriage, and holy matrimony.