Are Christians being targeted "for real?"

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
1John2_26
Guru
Posts: 1760
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:38 pm
Location: US

Are Christians being targeted "for real?"

Post #1

Post by 1John2_26 »

Are Christians being targeted "for real?"

Do Christians endure being hated like no other group?

The Media's War on the "War on Christians" Conference
By Don Feder
FrontPageMagazine.com | March 31, 2006


Last week (March 27-28), Vision America convened a War On Christians conference in Washington, D.C. It was the first to address escalating attacks on Christians from Hollywood, the news media, academia, the courts, and activist groups like the ACLU and Anti-Defamation League.

Speakers included scholars, authors, clergy (among them an Orthodox rabbi), lawyers and members of Congress. Delegates came from as far away as South Africa. I was the conference coordinator, as well as a speaker on two panels ("Jews Confront the War On Christians" and "Hollywood: Christians Through a Distorted Lens").

You will be shocked shocked! to learn that the mainstream media did its best to trivialize and marginalize the conference: to present a thoughtful examination of the rising tide of anti-Christian bias and persecution as the work of hysterical, paranoid whack-jobs who are manufacturing a crisis to generate donations and mobilize Republican votes.

An alleged news story in The Washington Post, (March 29th) by Alan Cooperman, was headlined "War on Christians Is Alleged." Try to imagine the Post covering the 2005 conference Examining the Real Agenda of the Religious Far Right and headlining its story "Coming Theocracy Alleged."
Cooperman misidentified Dr. Rick Scarborough, president of Vision America (the conference host) as a "radio commentator." You know, one of those guys who screams at you over the airwaves. In fact, besides being the head of a growing national movement, Scarborough is a Baptist minister, an author and an acclaimed speaker.
Cooperman included extensive quotes attacking the conference SOP for reportage on conservative events. A professor of social ethics charged that the meeting was "a spoiled brat response by Christians who have always enjoyed the privileges of a majority position." A mainline Protestant cleric claimed that by calling attention to the war on Christians in the U.S., the conference "disrespects the experience of people who have been jailed and died because of their faith."
This theme dominated news "coverage" Christians are so powerful that its absurd to claim theyre persecuted. Thus, a commentary in USA Today (March 28th) by Tom Krattenmaker (who called the conferences theme "overblown" and reckless): "We are in the second term of the most faith-friendly, explicitly Christian presidency in many a decade.Hollywood is producing more Christian-friendly movies [like The DaVinci Code? DF] while Christian news media, Christian music, Christian novels and other forms of Christian pop culture continue making their strong mark on society." Im only surprised Krattenmaker didnt cite the presence of "In God We Trust" on our currency to refute claims of Christian persecution.
Apparently, a majority of Americans are equally hysterical, reckless and disrespectful of real persecution. According to a FOX News poll taken in December 2005, 59 percent of the American people agreed with conference organizers that "Christianity is under attack" in the U.S. today.

In reality, you have to be dogmatic, blind and biased which pretty much describes the mainstream media to miss the obvious here.

V for Vendetta is the most explicitly anti-Christian movie to date. Its set in a Britain, 20 years in the future, ruled by a murderous regime of Christian fanatics. (Would Warner Brothers distribute a film about Britain becoming an Islamic republic?) V for Vendetta was the number one box-office draw in its first week of release, and number two in its second, with a cumulative gross revenue of over $46 million.
The latest literary hatchet-job by Kevin Phillips (American Theocracy) claims our civilization will be undone by (among other things) a "milieu of radicalized (and much too influential) religion." With the faithful fighting to keep "One Nation Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance (and the teaching of Creationism recently banned by a federal judge lest students be inspired to meditate on the "G" word), Phillips charge that religion is much too influential in America should provoke peals of uproarious laughter. "American Theocracy" just made it on The New York Times Bestsellers list further evidence of the formidable power of radicalized religion.
In California, an employer can be fined $150,000 (thats not a typo) for firing a man who comes to work in a dress. Believe it or not, the law wasnt intended to target secular humanists.
Hewlett-Packard fired a Christian for posting near his cubicle a sign with Bible verses relating to the prohibition of men lying with men. This was in response to a celebrate sexual-diversity sign posted by the company. Hewlett-Packard does not celebrate diversity of opinion.
At colleges across the country, Christian groups have lost their accreditation for refusing to accept homosexuals as officers. Thus, at schools founded by Christians and endowed by Christians Christians are forced to choose between their conscience and the ability to hold meetings on campus.
In the New York City public school system, Moslem crescents and menorahs are displayed during certain holidays, but not Christmas trees or crches. Incredibly, school officials have decided that the former are non-religious (try telling that to bin Laden) but the latter strictly sectarian.
Recently, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed a unanimous resolution attacking the Catholic Church for teaching that children should be placed for adoption with mothers and fathers. The resolution called this "hateful and discriminatory."
Last weekend, the Christian youth group Teen Mania held a two-day revival for 25,000 kids in the city that inspired the moniker San Francisco Democrats. Supervisors labeled this "an act of provocation," while State Assemblyman Mark Leno called it a "fascist mega-pep rally."
Evangelicals have been described as "a clear and present danger to religious liberty in America" (former Labor Secretary Robert Reich), determined to "Christianize all aspects of American Life" (the ADLs Abraham Foxman), "moral retards" and "an ugly, violent lot" (City University of New York Professor Timothy Shortell), possessed of "the same kind of fundamentalist impulse that we see in Saudi Arabia" (Al Gore), and responsible for moving America "each day closer to a theocracy where a narrow and hateful brand of Christian fundamentalism will rule" (a full-page ad in The New York Times, signed by Jane Fonda, Ed Asner and other Hollywood savants).
And, in Philadelphia not quite two years ago, a group of Christians with Repent America were arrested for holding signs and quietly praying at a city-sponsored gay pride event. Though the Christians obeyed all police orders and were accosted by militants, they were arrested and spent 20 hours in jail. The City of Brotherly Love wanted to prosecute them for a laundry list of felonies, including criminal conspiracy. If convicted, they could have faced up to 47 years in prison. (Fortunately, a reality-based judge ruled the Christians were exercising their First Amendment rights and threw out the case.) No other group in America has seen its free-speech rights attacked in similar fashion.
Granted, the foregoing doesnt rise to the level of persecution in Afghanistan (where a man was threatened with death for converting to Christianity), Saudi Arabia (where the New Testament is contraband), or China (where the organizers of home churches are imprisoned). And, granted again, unlike Europe, Christianity is thriving in America.

But to say the presidency of George W. Bush proves the potency of conservative Christians is a real stretch.

Bushs rep as an "explicitly Christian" president is based mostly on the 2000 campaign, wherein he referred to Jesus as his favorite philosopher. Last year, White House "Christmas" cards didnt even mention by name the holiday celebrated by more than 90 percent of Americans. Bush invokes the Almighty no more than any of his predecessors.

Despite a GOP majority reputed to be the love-slaves of Jerry Falwell, its been almost two years since Congress voted a on a federal marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Other than a ban on partial-birth abortion, the political agenda of Christian conservatives has been studiously ignored in our nations capital.

The news and entertainment media, public education, higher education, the judiciary and a fair number of corporations and foundations are in the hands of ideologues who despise Bible-believing Christians, and who rarely miss an opportunity to smear them, to foment hatred against them and to circumscribe their activities.

Give the National Socialists credit for candor. In 1920s Germany, if a Jew had said to a Nazi, "You hate me," the goose-steeper would have replied: "Youre right, Jew. And if we ever get a chance, well kill you." He would not have accused his victim of paranoia, hysteria, disrespecting real religious persecution, and making wild allegations for fundraising purposes.

The war on Christians is real. So too is the medias thoroughly biased coverage of same.

User avatar
OccamsRazor
Scholar
Posts: 438
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:08 am
Location: London, UK

Post #11

Post by OccamsRazor »

1John2_26 wrote:I think smashing chickens with large stones is something I do not want to do.

Am I a closeted animal cruelest? Am I sadophobic?
This argument does not stand up as you are referring to finding something reprehensible if it harms something or someone else.
I find it strange to have such a vehement position of hatred for something which essentially harms no-one and is something entered into by consenting adults.
1John2_26 wrote:I have always found it interesting to try to scare away dissenters of the Gay Agenda by scaring them to think they may be what they find reprehensible.
I am not attempting to scare you away from the topic. Rather I suggest that you may wish to consider the psychological basis of such an attack.
1John2_26 wrote:Doesn't that make homosexuality reprehensible in the mind of the one using it to scare away any dissenters?

You may want to think through the way you terrifiy away dissenters of sexual perversion.
Again I make the point that I am not trying to terrify anyone. I find it more interesting that you suggest that such a comment is terrifying and that you are not willing to enter into rational debate about it. You are merely attempting to quash reasonable discussion by suggesting that I am trying use fear tactics to stop you.

Furthermore I don't understand your point about the term "Homophobia". The article you attached gives a clear and concise definition of the term. The term is impassionate and clear.
1John2_26 wrote:It certainly is no way "phobic" to "disapporove" of it.
I would have thought that this is exactly what it means. As I stated your own posted article proves it.

My main point however I don't believe you have answered yet
OccamsRazor wrote:I'm sorry but are you truly suggesting that as a North American Christian Male that you are the group being persecuted?
Please answer yes or no

1John2_26
Guru
Posts: 1760
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:38 pm
Location: US

Post #12

Post by 1John2_26 »

1John2_26 wrote:
I think smashing chickens with large stones is something I do not want to do.

Am I a closeted animal cruelest? Am I sadophobic?

This argument does not stand up as you are referring to finding something reprehensible if it harms something or someone else.
I find it strange to have such a vehement position of hatred for something which essentially harms no-one and is something entered into by consenting adults.
How many innocent people have died from just blood transfusions? What is the name of the stadium where the US Open Tennis championship is played? How many orphaned children are dying from AIDS as we write? Why do people have to be taught to use condoms NOW. Consenting adults drink and drive. Alcohol is a legal thing to do.

You may want to rethink using a logical argument. Just emotional politics is the only thing that can support sexual debauchery and doing what is wrong as good. The Democrat party has a place for ideals like that.
1John2_26 wrote:
I have always found it interesting to try to scare away dissenters of the Gay Agenda by scaring them to think they may be what they find reprehensible.

I am not attempting to scare you away from the topic. Rather I suggest that you may wish to consider the psychological basis of such an attack.


If protecting innocent people and protecting decency is pathological than I am insane like Christ Jesus, Peter, Paul, John, Jude, and many others that follow the Truth.
1John2_26 wrote:
Doesn't that make homosexuality reprehensible in the mind of the one using it to scare away any dissenters?

You may want to think through the way you terrifiy away dissenters of sexual perversion.

Again I make the point that I am not trying to terrify anyone. I find it more interesting that you suggest that such a comment is terrifying and that you are not willing to enter into rational debate about it.
"Me" and rational debate? Please. Rationality and the Gay Agenda are mutually exclusive. You attempt the age old scare tactic of accusing me of being what I disapprove of. If that is the case, then George Washigton died a British subject. Rationality is a close friend of truth.
You are merely attempting to quash reasonable discussion by suggesting that I am trying use fear tactics to stop you.


I did not claim you are a Christian for opposing Christianity. Just the opposite would be the case.
Furthermore I don't understand your point about the term "Homophobia". The article you attached gives a clear and concise definition of the term. The term is impassionate and clear.
It is a neologism. Liberalism loves that kind of insanity. Homophobia is used exactly the way you used it, to scare away dissenters. It is creepy. Like a pedophile to a child. Now any disapproval of homosexualization of society is seen as a hate crime. Isn't that convenient? Ever read the story of Sodom and Lot?
1John2_26 wrote:
It certainly is no way "phobic" to "disapporove" of it.

I would have thought that this is exactly what it means. As I stated your own posted article proves it.
It is not a bad thing to disapprove of homosexual sex acts. I am a parent. My children are important to me.
My main point however I don't believe you have answered yet
Uh yeah.
OccamsRazor wrote:
I'm sorry but are you truly suggesting that as a North American Christian Male that you are the group being persecuted?

Please answer yes or no
Here let me spell my answer for you: Y E S

Just ask James Dobson.

By the way, you left out "white." Why's that?

User avatar
OccamsRazor
Scholar
Posts: 438
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:08 am
Location: London, UK

Post #13

Post by OccamsRazor »

1John2_26 wrote:How many innocent people have died from just blood transfusions? What is the name of the stadium where the US Open Tennis championship is played? How many orphaned children are dying from AIDS as we write? Why do people have to be taught to use condoms NOW.
Again this seems to me like a directionless rant. Are you suggesting that sexually transmitted diseases are a purely homosexual phenomenon?
1John2_26 wrote:Consenting adults drink and drive. Alcohol is a legal thing to do.
Yes but if you refer back to my point, drinking and driving is dangerous and can cause harm to the perpetrators and other road users. I already stated that I have no issue with disapproval of these things.
1John2_26 wrote:You may want to rethink using a logical argument. Just emotional politics is the only thing that can support sexual debauchery and doing what is wrong as good. The Democrat party has a place for ideals like that.
I thank you for a well meted out rational response.
1John2_26 wrote:"Me" and rational debate? Please.
I think that you have made that point very well.
1John2_26 wrote:You attempt the age old scare tactic of accusing me of being what I disapprove of.
I reiterate again. I am not trying to scare anyone. I am merely making a logical observation.
1John2_26 wrote:Rationality is a close friend of truth.
Rationality canont infer objective truth. It is merely a philisophical tool for determining it.
1John2_26 wrote:I did not claim you are a Christian for opposing Christianity. Just the opposite would be the case.
I am not opposing Christianity, I am opposing your philosophical position. You are correct however, I am not Christian, I am atheist.
1John2_26 wrote:It is a neologism.
So? AIDS is a neologism.
1John2_26 wrote:It is not a bad thing to disapprove of homosexual sex acts. I am a parent. My children are important to me.
My wife and I are having a baby in October, so I am going to be a parent soon. We have gay friends who we are very likely to ask to babysit at some point. What do you think they are going to do to my son/daughter?
1John2_26 wrote:By the way, you left out "white." Why's that?
Becuase I have had no evidence to imply that you were white.

Does it not bother you that you are suggesting that the most powerful group on earth, a group which includes George Bush, The Pope, Jaques Chirac, Silvio Berlusconi etc. etc. are the persecuted victims?

User avatar
Lotan
Guru
Posts: 2006
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2004 1:38 pm
Location: The Abyss

Post #14

Post by Lotan »

OccamsRazor wrote:I'm sorry but are you truly suggesting that as a North American Christian Male that you are the group being persecuted?

Please answer yes or no
1John2_26 wrote:Here let me spell my answer for you: Y E S

Just ask James Dobson.
James Dobson???????????????? :yikes:
Why didn't you say so in the first place?
Actually the good doctor enjoys persecuting others as much as the next guy...

Dobson relied on false and misleading statements to bash judges, called for Supreme Court impeachments while hailing himself as "prophetic"
"False and misleading"? " Bash"? But he seems like such a nice fellow...

Example of Misinformation on Pederasty

"A report by Focus on the Family attempts to disseminate a Christian interpretation of homosexuality in a manner that appears to be scientific and objective. 3 Their section Pedophilia and Age of Consent Laws includes statements such as:

"Studies indicate that around 35 percent of pedophiles are homosexuals"

"...a child molester is 17 times more likely to be homosexual than heterosexual"

"...whereas heterosexual pedophiles commit an average of 20 acts of child molestation, for homosexuals the number is 150."

"Thus, in terms of the likelihood and the extent of child sexual molestation, homosexuals, as a group, represent a serious threat."
They cite three reports to support their assertions. 3,4,5 They make two very serious errors in this section of their report:

they assume that all males who molest boys are homosexuals. This is not true; they are generally pedophiles with no sexual attraction to other adults. And many, if not most, are sexually attracted to both boys and girls.

they assume that all homosexuals are males. They find something negative that they feel they can say about male homosexuals and extend it to all homosexuals; lesbians included. It is also seen very commonly in discussions of AIDS. Such groups will typically condemn gays for levels of HIV infections which are higher than among heterosexuals; they ignore the fact that HIV infections among lesbians are lower than among heterosexuals."


Who would imagine that such pleasant geezer would spread hateful lies about others?

Image
And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto His people. Exodus 32:14

1John2_26
Guru
Posts: 1760
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:38 pm
Location: US

Post #15

Post by 1John2_26 »

OR, you got me laughing.
1John2_26 wrote:
How many innocent people have died from just blood transfusions? What is the name of the stadium where the US Open Tennis championship is played? How many orphaned children are dying from AIDS as we write? Why do people have to be taught to use condoms NOW.

Again this seems to me like a directionless rant. Are you suggesting that sexually transmitted diseases are a purely homosexual phenomenon?


Hello? STD's and sexual and social immorality equal the same thing. Even in regards to INNOCENT victims. That is really hard for you to grasp? Certainly NOT a "directionless rant" at all. I pointed you in the perfect direction.
1John2_26 wrote:
Consenting adults drink and drive. Alcohol is a legal thing to do.

Yes but if you refer back to my point, drinking and driving is dangerous and can cause harm to the perpetrators and other road users. I already stated that I have no issue with disapproval of these things.


Good. But the Gays and Lesbians do not share your willingness to see things so morally sound. They have put into laws anyone disapproving of same-sex sex acts as a criminal.
1John2_26 wrote:
You may want to rethink using a logical argument. Just emotional politics is the only thing that can support sexual debauchery and doing what is wrong as good. The Democrat party has a place for ideals like that.

I thank you for a well meted out rational response.
It is ubiquitous to my writings. Like Joe says: "Just the facts."
1John2_26 wrote:
"Me" and rational debate? Please.
I think that you have made that point very well.

1John2_26 wrote:
You attempt the age old scare tactic of accusing me of being what I disapprove of.

I reiterate again. I am not trying to scare anyone. I am merely making a logical observation.


I do not like pedophiles either. I do not want to have sex with children. I disapprove of pedophilia and want laws against pedophilia. Taking the logical path, you would accuse me of being a closeted bad guy. Sometimes the Knight fighting for the masses is the good guy.
1John2_26 wrote:
Rationality is a close friend of truth.
Rationality canont infer objective truth. It is merely a philisophical tool for determining it.
What time is blue? Gimme a break. I went to philosophy 101 a long time ago. Leftist professor and all. Empricism is the father of logic. Do I need to get graphic?
1John2_26 wrote:
I did not claim you are a Christian for opposing Christianity. Just the opposite would be the case.
I am not opposing Christianity, I am opposing your philosophical position. You are correct however, I am not Christian, I am atheist.


Good for you. Many atheists are more trust worthy than hypocrites. God wants you either hot or cold. Besides I don't believe there is any such thing as "an" atheist. Just righteous indignation in those that no there should be no suffering. But the evolutionist atheists? Those guys gotta go. 0 x 1 - 0.
1John2_26 wrote:
It is a neologism.
So? AIDS is a neologism.
NO. AIDS stands for something acquired:
AIDS (dz)
n.

[a(cquired) i(mmune) d(eficiency) s(yndrome).]

A severe immunological disorder caused by the retrovirus HIV, resulting in a defect in cell-mediated immune response that is manifested by increased susceptibility to opportunistic infections and to certain rare cancers, especially Kaposi's sarcoma. It is transmitted primarily by exposure to contaminated body fluids, especially blood and semen.
Morality would wipe out AIDS very quickly. It is 100% PREVENTABLE. See where empiricism is so important?
1John2_26 wrote:
It is not a bad thing to disapprove of homosexual sex acts. I am a parent. My children are important to me.

My wife and I are having a baby in October, so I am going to be a parent soon.
Bye-bye atheism. You will not look into the face of a random chance mutation. You will look into the face of God's beauty.
We have gay friends who we are very likely to ask to babysit at some point. What do you think they are going to do to my son/daughter?


What they will not be doing for my children.

I have gay friends too. One that is truly like my brother. And, he is a Christian. I oppose same-sex marriage and the normalizing of homosexuality in school settings and society. They all know that.
1John2_26 wrote:
By the way, you left out "white." Why's that?
Becuase I have had no evidence to imply that you were white.


But what about the common skin color of our next guests?
Does it not bother you that you are suggesting that the most powerful group on earth, a group which includes George Bush, The Pope, Jaques Chirac, Silvio Berlusconi etc. etc. are the persecuted victims?
They are all protested against incessantly. George Bush is a hate crimes perpetrator in San Francisco and most of California, Massachusetts, New York, Seattle. As is any white Christian male that disapproves of homosexuality. In Europe "homophobia" is now a crime.

I think that answer should suffice.

Welcome to the truth in reporting. It'll take you awhile to get used to hearing it.

1John2_26
Guru
Posts: 1760
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:38 pm
Location: US

Post #16

Post by 1John2_26 »

Lotan,

Pederasty is 100% homosexual. Do the research. OR if you would like I'll posy YET AGAIN that fact?

Sappho, of Lesbos Island of Greek lore, that the lesbians follow, was marrieed to a man and had a child from that man. I don't get where she had sex with her young students comes from? But in todays world that would be called pedophilia, to have sex with your students if you are an adult. Thanks Lotan for pointing us in the right direction.
OccamsRazor wrote:
I'm sorry but are you truly suggesting that as a North American Christian Male that you are the group being persecuted?

Please answer yes or no 1John2_26 wrote:
Here let me spell my answer for you: Y E S

Just ask James Dobson.

James Dobson????????????????
Why didn't you say so in the first place?
Actually the good doctor enjoys persecuting others as much as the next guy...
Proof would be nice. "Disapproval of homosexuality and the Gay Agenda and accurate Biblical teachings in not persecution.
Dobson relied on false and misleading statements to bash judges, called for Supreme Court impeachments while hailing himself as "prophetic"
"False and misleading"? " Bash"? But he seems like such a nice fellow...
Did Dobson "write" the stats? If I went to San Francisco what would my research numbers look like?

Example of Misinformation on Pederasty
"A report by Focus on the Family attempts to disseminate a Christian interpretation of homosexuality in a manner that appears to be scientific and objective. 3 Their section Pedophilia and Age of Consent Laws includes statements such as:

"Studies indicate that around 35 percent of pedophiles are homosexuals"
Actually 100% ot male to male pedophilia is homosexual. Ask the Catholic Church?
"...a child molester is 17 times more likely to be homosexual than heterosexual"

"...whereas heterosexual pedophiles commit an average of 20 acts of child molestation, for homosexuals the number is 150."
Yes these numbers seem wrong.
"Thus, in terms of the likelihood and the extent of child sexual molestation, homosexuals, as a group, represent a serious threat."
They cite three reports to support their assertions. 3,4,5 They make two very serious errors in this section of their report:
they assume that all males who molest boys are homosexuals.
That would be the definition of a fact. Homosexual sex is homosexuality.
This is not true; they are generally pedophiles with no sexual attraction to other adults. And many, if not most, are sexually attracted to both boys and girls.
But when they molest boys, it is called homosexuality. When they molest girls it is called heterosexual pedophilia.
they assume that all homosexuals are males.
Not an entirely "bad" assumption. But the girls are catching up on TV.
They find something negative that they feel they can say about male homosexuals and extend it to all homosexuals; lesbians included.
That is because gays and lesbains have created this thing called the LGBTQ Culture AND Community. Don't blame Dobson for that.
It is also seen very commonly in discussions of AIDS. Such groups will typically condemn gays for levels of HIV infections which are higher than among heterosexuals; they ignore the fact that HIV infections among lesbians are lower than among heterosexuals."


So condemning anal sex and uncountable numbers of sex partners through an unimaginably promiscuous is NOT homophobia and just the facts?
Who would imagine that such pleasant geezer would spread hateful lies about others?
From the atheist liberal side or the sane side?

Please show the audience how the anatomy of the human body was designed? Especially in regards to "sexual intercourse?"
Then we'll see if Dobson is on the right err, correct side or the wrong side?

Let's let the evidence judge him?

Thank you Lotan, for another encouraging debate.

User avatar
OccamsRazor
Scholar
Posts: 438
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:08 am
Location: London, UK

Post #17

Post by OccamsRazor »

1John2_26 wrote:From the atheist liberal side or the sane side?
Thank you Lotan, for another encouraging debate.
OR, you got me laughing.
What time is blue? Gimme a break. I went to philosophy 101 a long time ago. Leftist professor and all. Empricism is the father of logic. Do I need to get graphic?
Welcome to the truth in reporting. It'll take you awhile to get used to hearing it.
I must say John, why is it you cannot enter into a rational debate? You seem to respond by purely mocking every view which is contrary to your position.
It seems, in my opinion, as if you are unwilling to test your own theories.
Should I reply to your posts or are you going to continue to mock alternative views?

User avatar
Lotan
Guru
Posts: 2006
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2004 1:38 pm
Location: The Abyss

Post #18

Post by Lotan »

1John2_26 wrote:Thank you Lotan, for another encouraging debate.
Sorry 1John, I forgot how excited you get about sodomy! :whistle: My bad. Yes, human anatomy is quite versatile, just open up your Kama Sutra. Once you calm down a little, the thread topic is actually "Are Christians being targeted "for real?" You seem to think Dr. Dobson knows something about it, and I agree that he does, as a prominent sponsor of that myth. He is also not above using misinformation to persecute others.
1John2_26 wrote:Let's let the evidence judge him?
Yes, let's.
And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto His people. Exodus 32:14

1John2_26
Guru
Posts: 1760
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:38 pm
Location: US

Post #19

Post by 1John2_26 »

1John2_26 wrote:
From the atheist liberal side or the sane side?
Thank you Lotan, for another encouraging debate.
OR, you got me laughing.
What time is blue? Gimme a break. I went to philosophy 101 a long time ago. Leftist professor and all. Empricism is the father of logic. Do I need to get graphic?
Welcome to the truth in reporting. It'll take you awhile to get used to hearing it.
I must say John, why is it you cannot enter into a rational debate?
I have never veered from it. Getting your feelings hurt is something I care nothing about. Look at how easily Lotan insults me? It's worthless diatribe and nothing more. It hurts not a bit. He knows well that I do not want children sodomized by homosexual men, and performs for his club members. Since the homosexual sex act is well defined as soon as a man has sex with another male, Lotan knows well that man IS a homosexual. No matter the paint he walks around under.

The poor victim is just a victim, But the interesting thing is how many victims grow up to be perpetrators. It seems sex acts spread sex acts.

Hmm!
You seem to respond by purely mocking every view which is contrary to your position.


Yes I mock absurdity. I apologize if it hurts your feelings on that point.
It seems, in my opinion, as if you are unwilling to test your own theories.
Should I reply to your posts or are you going to continue to mock alternative views?
I have seen many peole fold their tents and go home. It is the typical liberal response to being challenged in the same way they challenge others.

I present facts to counter your points. I'm sure that is unsettling in someone that thought they were being taught the truth.

I do test all things. It is a Christian thing.

1John2_26
Guru
Posts: 1760
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:38 pm
Location: US

Post #20

Post by 1John2_26 »

What's too bad is that children are not only Sodomized but are taught it is a civil right to do so. My excitement comes from defending children that are vulnerable to adults getting to them. Thank you for noticing my passion. It IS getting through, even to you atheists that support the civil rights of sexual perversion. Sorry I cannot join with you on that issue. Children need to be protected.
Yes, human anatomy is quite versatile, just open up your Kama Sutra. Once you calm down a little, the thread topic is actually "Are Christians being targeted "for real?"
The sexually promiscuous are big enemies of Christians. The debached always have been.
You seem to think Dr. Dobson knows something about it, and I agree that he does, as a prominent sponsor of that myth.
The myth that the digestive and excretion tract are sex organs? I think a quick trip to your physiology book will show how in the right Dobson is on sexuality.
He is also not above using misinformation to persecute others.
Now there's a myth.
1John2_26 wrote:
Let's let the evidence judge him?

Yes, let's.
Let's go to the maternity ward and see where babies come from for starters. Then, we'll follow the evidence backwards and see what we discover about correct sexuality.

Luv ya Lotan, yer the greatest.

Post Reply