WATCH: Ted Cruz tells Iowa group that gays are waging ‘jihad’ against Christians

a reply to: Seamrog

When I was forming my reply, I had no idea what your user name was other than "Angry" something.

LOL good try. You sputtered once again. Very good try.

You are wrong.

That's it? Oh I forgot. It is to be expected that we get yet another non-responsive post from you.

originally posted by: Seamrog

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

'Angryblablabla' eh? Classy. Not.

When I was forming my reply, I had no idea what your user name was other than "Angry" something.

There is absolutely nothing we can point to as being original.

You are wrong.

No, I am right. Go look up the Rylands Library Papyrus P52. It's the earliest fragment of the New Testament ever found and seems to be from the Gospel of John, dating to the Second Century. We have translations from the original Greek that have been passed down over the years, we also have fragments from gospels that seem to have been pruned from the NT. Do we have the originals? No, of course we don't. They probably started off as oral accounts anyway.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

...the truth of the matter is that we have no idea what the early Christian church was like, other than to speculate that it was a branch of Rabbinical Judaism which became headless after the fall of Jerusalem and which was radically changed by Saul of Tarsus.

Don't try and re-frame your argument.


Here is only ONE example or historical evidence we have the illustrates and documents what the early Church was like...not on a fragment of a papyrus, but carved in stone.


Perhaps you will find this informative.


Early Christian Inscriptions

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
I am this point where I think he is a troll. I understand all about Poe's law but I am really tired.

Meh. He does the same stuff to me. I'm pretty sure he's not a troll. He just isn't a great arguer.

I want to believe he's a troll...or else he really thinks raping children is ok, but homosexuality is a terrible sin...or I at least hope he is about the only so-called Christian to believe that...which, since he seems so keen on preserving the 'true faith' of Catholicism, I am curious whether he believes that the catholic church permits the raping of children, so long as the child is of the opposite sex...or is he going against the church? To hear about a child being raped, and then to raise concerns about whether or not the child was of the same sex, because THAT is what matters...despicable...

originally posted by: Seamrog

originally posted by: DeadFoot


Said every Jihadist ever about Islam.

This brings it full circle...


I am not willing to behead you for your lack of faith.

I am not willing to force you to convert to my faith.

I am not supportive of forcing you to accept my lifestyle.

The homosexualists are supportive of forcing me to accept theirs.

Thanks for playing.

Beheading someone for not sharing religion = having it be legal for everyone to choose whatever spouse they want

I sure hope you are not representatives of Catholics in general...I would hope this incredible ignorance and lack of logic is confined to a relatively small minority...

originally posted by: Seamrog

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

...the truth of the matter is that we have no idea what the early Christian church was like, other than to speculate that it was a branch of Rabbinical Judaism which became headless after the fall of Jerusalem and which was radically changed by Saul of Tarsus.

Don't try and re-frame your argument.


Here is only ONE example or historical evidence we have the illustrates and documents what the early Church was like...not on a fragment of a papyrus, but carved in stone.


Perhaps you will find this informative.


Early Christian Inscriptions

And again you misrepresent what I said and once again you try to divert from the matter in hand. Nice try, but it ain't working. Thank you for the link, but I am not talking about the Christian Church of the Fourth or Fifth Centuries, but the actual texts of the First Century. Which should have been perfectly clear from my posts. By the time of the First Council of Nicea the basics of Christianity had been roughly decided on and Christianity slotted nicely into the paw of the State in Rome and Constantinople.
Please address my point. If you can. Which I doubt.

Ted Cruz, in a recent speech, claims that gays are waging jihad against christians.

Discuss.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Ted Cruz, in a recent speech, claims that gays are waging jihad against christians.

Discuss.

(Ahem) Quite right - back to the topic in hand, namely Cruz and his shameless pandering to a certain demographic.

originally posted by: Seamrog
This is a strawman argument. I never claimed that.

If you were interested in the post, you would see that I made it clear that one verse, or one gospel does NOT constitute the entirety of the faith.

Sacred Scripture as interpreted by the Church and presented as doctrine is infallible, and absolute.

THAT is what I'm saying.

originally posted by: Seamrog

For Catholics, it is not nonsense - it is the bedrock of our faith. Jesus Christ founded and guides his Church. He is eternal - read unchangable. There is absolutely no flex in that.

You are contradicting yourself over and over and over again, but I understand why that would be.
Really, you know you are wrong, but to admit this would cause some physhological anguish. It would be admitting that the things you preach are really nothing more than flimsy bs.

Just like every homophobic "Christian" you want to selectively pick out the bits that give you some perception of having authority and control over others, while conveniently brushing aside all the parts of your faith that require you to actually sacrifice anything, or the parts that would really make you sound like a loon.

Thankfully, even just being homophobic and ignorant is getting the Christians nothing but condemnation and ire from the general public.

This is what a lot of radical Christians just can't get their heads around: Homophobia today is like racism in the 1950's and 60's, the "Church" might think it's okay to cling to it, but the public is telling you to GTFO.

originally posted by: Seamrog
The homosexualists are supportive of forcing me to accept theirs.

Wrong again.
You are not being "forced" to accept anything.
You are being denied your perceived and imagined "right" to abuse other people based on your personal warped religious doctrine.

You are not being forced to marry a person of the same sex.
You are not being forced to have intercourse with a person of the same sex.

When you are being forced to do either of these things, then and only then do you have a right to claim that you are being abused by some imagined "homosexualist" group.

Let me make it clear again... being told that you do not have the right to beat people into submission with your holy book is NOT an attack on you as a Christian, it's preventing YOU from thinking you have the right to abuse others.

The truth here is that you, and other fanatical Christians, want to use your beliefs as a means of abusing other people. Now that the public attitude is changing and telling people like you that it's not acceptable to be hateful toward others because of nothing more than who they love, you're making it out to be an "attack" on your "faith".

The thing is Cruz is not a dummy. He is fully aware of where the things he says, at times, the utterly outlandish things he says, diverge from reality.

Some of it I am quite sure, evolves from his father's likely lifelong message to him that "god is preparing you for something special."

So, you have to assume that he actually plans these things IN ADVANCE and works them out carefully to match with his agenda.

Which is what? What's he really after, what part is he playing, which "piece" on the board is Ted Cruz?

a reply to: Seamrog

Slightly off topic: As a Catholic you're very fortunate that this country has constitutional separation of Church and State.

A lot of these evangelical protestants who you might think are on your side in the "culture wars" don't even consider Catholics to be Christian.

a reply to: DelMarvel

I am well aware of it...I live in the bible belt.

I've been told I'm going to hell, that I'm not a Christian, that I am a cult member.

I've had Chick tracts put on my windshield while attending Holy Mass.

I have personally witnessed a sitting county council member refuse to approve an addition project at a Catholic Church because she could not support an institution that 'invaded a woman's uterus' and was a sponsor of 'hate.' Separation of church and state does not stop discrimination.

I get what it means to be discriminated against.

I do not support state sponsored actions against it.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
*snip*

And let's be honest, the gay community only reacts this way when the Christian community does something really stupid, like the Indiana law.
*snip*
~Tenth

Actually, the Indiana law was created in response to the actions of homosexual activists targeting Christian businesses and individuals, and anyone who dared to say they don't approve. These activists are among the most intolerant people around. They don't want equality; they want to force

Actually, these recent SNEAKY LAWS are all being filed now so they'll be in place before the USSC rules on Marriage Equality.

*snip*

No; they are being enacted to protect Constitutional rights, regarding freedom of religion. They are being enacted to protect people of faith from intolerant activists.

"Sneaky" would be on the order of targeting a Christian business for the sole purpose of filing a lawsuit so that they can force their personal views on everyone else.

Considering that you stated elsewhere that children are "markers" for payment to schools, your opinion here doesn't surprise me any.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

These laws (based on RFRA) are enacted to establish a superior "religious class" that is not subject to law.

The Federal RFRA has been declared unconstitutional in major provisions by the Supreme Court, indeed, it was determined that Congress has overstepped its Constitutional bounds by establishing a greater status for religion than the Founders intended.

These laws have been and will be defeated in the court of public opinion, and in time, they will be removed for their unconstitutional provisions.

Expanding government manded "religious practice" to cover whatever laws a given religious person doesn't like is a travesty in light of the Constitution.

originally posted by: Seamrog

originally posted by: DeadFoot


Said every Jihadist ever about Islam.

This brings it full circle...


I am not willing to behead you for your lack of faith.

I am not willing to force you to convert to my faith.

I am not supportive of forcing you to accept my lifestyle.

The homosexualists are supportive of forcing me to accept theirs.

Thanks for playing.

I fidn this hilarious considering that you JUST SAID that this thread is evidence that homosexuals are "waging jihad on Christians", yet this thread is void of all of those things as well. I guess I shouldn't be surprised at this point, considering your indulgent love affair with cherry-picking to introduce more and more hyperbole to your worthless arguments.

And no, you wouldn't do those thing. You would have Children's Aid take my daughter away because she has two fathers (Absolutely insane).

You've made much more personal threats.

And yes, that is absolutely forcing me to accept your lifestyle, it's also forcing innocent children to be ruled by your un-sound doctrine. My opposition to your call to action is not me "forcing you to accept my lifestyle". It's me telling you that you will not ruin my daughter's life based on your vapid-minded ideological perpetuation of life-destroying ignorance. It's me telling you that I, and my children, will not be forced to accept YOUR lifestyle when it is not ours.

Get over yourself.

I'd just like to point out that, by the same logic Cruz applies here, if a movement of women in the Middle East wanting to be able to live freely without head coverings were to arise, or a similar movement, that would be jihad...since going against accepted religious fundamentalism is apparently 'jihad,' despite the fact that jihad is a fundamentalist religious movement, but whatever...

a reply to: DeadFoot

I wish you peace in your life, and I will continue to pray for the children that are subject to your care.

originally posted by: Seamrog
a reply to: DeadFoot

I wish you peace in your life, and I will continue to pray for the children that are subject to your care.

And I thank god that they are in his care, rather than someone like you who thinks child rape is ok, so long as it's heterosexual.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

These laws (based on RFRA) are enacted to establish a superior "religious class" that is not subject to law.

That's what I would call the laws set up for homosexual "rights", and "protections". Laws that treat one group as somehow better than others, and crimes against them as more serious than crimes against others, create a "superior" class. Laws protecting the right of people of faith to not support something that is against their religious and moral beliefs doe not create any protected class; they protect rights that are guaranteed under the Constittion.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
The Federal RFRA has been declared unconstitutional in major provisions by the Supreme Court, indeed, it was determined that Congress has overstepped its Constitutional bounds by establishing a greater status for religion than the Founders intended.

That some judges decided to ignore religious freedom doesn't make it right. The Supreme Court supported slave owners and slavery in the 1800's; does that mean they were correct? These laws serve to protect religious freedom, and not allow it to come under attack because of aberrant sexual behaviors and militant activists, that want to penalize any opposition.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
These laws have been and will be defeated in the court of public opinion, and in time, they will be removed for their unconstitutional provisions.

Public opinion used to be that slavery was acceptable, even from Northerners. That also didn't make it right. At this point, much of public opinion is wrong. Much isn't, and many voters, in state after state after state, have voted to not allow homosexual marriage. That is public opinion, and courts decide to not allow it, yet you use it as an argument?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Expanding government manded "religious practice" to cover whatever laws a given religious person doesn't like is a travesty in light of the Constitution.

No one is talking about any "government mandated" religious practice. People are talking about the right to not bake a wedding cake for a ceremony that is against their Constitutionally protected religious beliefs, or take photos of the same, or host a same sex couple in their home. The government does not mandate those beliefs, nor does it have any right, on the national or state or local level, to restrict those rights with laws forcing people to act against their beliefs.