The new social front line for Christian persecution and the

[Former Christian]

Danus

To the Christian Savage is not the subject

To the Christian? I wan't clear until now. Anyone who disagrees with you is not thinking like a Christian. Maybe is not a Christian. Christians tend to be judgmental that way. Well, that includes me obviously. The point that Wayseer made is clear and reasonable. Application of criteria must be equal. And Dan Savage certainly is at the center and focal point of this thread. Even if a focal point for the common mode of thinking behind those who have either or both the gay and New Atheist agenda.

But to Wayseer,

There is a definite difference between Dan Savage and Jesus. Dan Savage was bullying in his own right. Matters not who or how many walked out. The attitude is clear. Besides, there is evidence now that those kids didn't walk out on their own. The walk-out was initially instigated by a teacher. So the walk-out is irrelevant.

Jesus never bullied anyone. He got on those who misused their authority and interpreted the bible to mean things it doesn't mean. He constantly brought up to the people their lack of faith and encouraged them to see their own situation, sometimes with harsh words in hopes of awakening some. But he never bullied the way Dan Savage did. He certainly didn't say things against the Bible as it existed in his day. But, and to be fair, Jesus did point out to the Pharisees that their interpretation of the bible was selective. Just like Dan Savage points out today in relation to Christians. From Dan Savage, that will mean nothing to Christians. Hopefully, at some point, some Christians will hear Jesus on the matter.

NC

 

[Danus]

Danus



To the Christian? I wan't clear until now. Anyone who disagrees with you is not thinking like a Christian. Maybe is not a Christian. Christians tend to be judgmental that way. Well, that includes me obviously. The point that Wayseer made is clear and reasonable. Application of criteria must be equal. And Dan Savage certainly is at the center and focal point of this thread. Even if a focal point for the common mode of thinking behind those who have either or both the gay and New Atheist agenda.

I guess your on to me.

I was hoping to get Wayseer to expand a little more on his point. If Dan savage is the issue then Dan savage is the only one who holds the message that he voiced in that video. I don't think that's at all the case. Do you?

I guess anyone can call them self a follower of Jesus and claim anything they want in light of that, but I tend to hold the label of Christian very narrowly, which does I suppose make me pretty judgmental. However, the word judgmental really does not define itselfe as a stand alone label, now does it?

It could be used in a good way or a bad way, but either way it deserves further explanation. Still though, in saying that, we don't yet have an explanation from Wayseer, on just exactly what he means.

So far he's left it open to some interpretation, and before I can fully agree to being judgmental I first need to have something to judge. Otherwise I'd have to draw a conclusion based on very little. I'm thinking he likes Dan Savages message, but I don't want to fully say that until I know for sure. When I do know for sure where he stands and his point, then you will see judgmental in action. ...Till then, label me ...? condemnatory. That's more like having the desire to be judgmental but sort of holding it back.

So that I'm not quoted by you out of context, please allow me to re-quote myself with the full context that you simply picked a few words out of to make a sentence. The full statment was,

To the Christian Savage is not the subject, his message, the world and how we see and react to it is the subject.

 

[wayseer]

The perspective of the Christian about Savage is the irony of his so called fight against bullies and his idea of "tolerance" yet he himself displays intolerance. His message to us is a clear paradox, and in many ways it's just funny in a sad way.

... and as I said, Savage is doing no more than what Jesus said and did.

 

[wayseer]

But to Wayseer,

There is a definite difference between Dan Savage and Jesus. Dan Savage was bullying in his own right. Matters not who or how many walked out. The attitude is clear. Besides, there is evidence now that those kids didn't walk out on their own. The walk-out was initially instigated by a teacher. So the walk-out is irrelevant.

I think the so-called 'walk-out' is very relevant - it forms part of the discussion. And as I said, there were many who walked out on Jesus.

Jesus never bullied anyone.

Was Jesus a bully when he responded to a wannabe follower - let the dead bury the dead?

Was Jesus a bully when he referred to Gentiles who asked for help as 'dogs'.

If you answer No, then you have to respond with the same answer to Savage. To do anything else is hypocritical.

What I am suggesting is that people seem rather upset at Savage but are rather reluctant to apply the same criteria to Jesus' words - which are every bit as confronting, intolerant, and demeaning as anything uttered by Savage.

 

[tessiewebb]

I think the so-called 'walk-out' is very relevant - it forms part of the discussion. And as I said, there were many who walked out on Jesus.



Was Jesus a bully when he responded to a wannabe follower - let the dead bury the dead?

Was Jesus a bully when he referred to Gentiles who asked for help as 'dogs'.

If you answer No, then you have to respond with the same answer to Savage. To do anything else is hypocritical.

What I am suggesting is that people seem rather upset at Savage but are rather reluctant to apply the same criteria to Jesus' words - which are every bit as confronting, intolerant, and demeaning as anything uttered by Savage.

To compare Jesus' and His words with a human that uses foul words to describe The Word of God is intolerable, Wayseer. What "Way" is it you See?

 

[Danus]

I think the so-called 'walk-out' is very relevant - it forms part of the discussion. And as I said, there were many who walked out on Jesus.



Was Jesus a bully when he responded to a wannabe follower - let the dead bury the dead?

Was Jesus a bully when he referred to Gentiles who asked for help as 'dogs'.

If you answer No, then you have to respond with the same answer to Savage. To do anything else is hypocritical.

What I am suggesting is that people seem rather upset at Savage but are rather reluctant to apply the same criteria to Jesus' words - which are every bit as confronting, intolerant, and demeaning as anything uttered by Savage.

Jesus was God in the flesh. His purpose was a greater plan. If you see Jesus as just a man, or a great teacher, or anything less than God in the flesh, then you can apply whatever you wish to him.

What's not clear on your part is where you are coming from in your statements. I think your too afraid to disclose yourself. What are you hiding to make it so unclear where your faith lies....:

 

[reba]

... and as I said, Savage is doing no more than what Jesus said and did.

Savage is a man Jesus is God. As a Christian do you not see the difference? The difference between man and God? Trying with your words to bring Christ down to the level of man just seems to me to be so antichrist.

 

[Mike S]

Savage is a man Jesus is God. As a Christian do you not see the difference? The difference between man and God? Trying with your words to bring Christ down to the level of man just seems to me to be so antichrist.

Responding to a fool only gives him what he wants, a chance to jerk you around. Time to shake the dust off our sandals and walk away from him.

 

[wayseer]

To compare Jesus' and His words with a human that uses foul words to describe The Word of God is intolerable, Wayseer.

Indeed - just as some see Savage's words as 'intolerable'.

But please, have an attempt at answer some of the questions I raised.

 

[wayseer]

Jesus was God in the flesh. His purpose was a greater plan. If you see Jesus as just a man, or a great teacher, or anything less than God in the flesh, then you can apply whatever you wish to him.

What's not clear on your part is where you are coming from in your statements. I think your too afraid to disclose yourself. What are you hiding to make it so unclear where your faith lies....:

That you are confused seems obvious.

Perhaps you can overcome part of that confusion by answering the questions I raised.

Or is it that there are many on a 'holier than thou' trip?

 

[wayseer]

Responding to a fool only gives him what he wants, a chance to jerk you around. Time to shake the dust off our sandals and walk away from him.

Ad hominem attacks inevitable demonstrate that you have no real response to make.

 

[Former Christian]

Danus

Response to #82

I was hoping to get Wayseer to expand a little more on his point. If Dan savage is the issue then Dan savage is the only one who holds the message that he voiced in that video. I don't think that's at all the case. Do you?

Well, it’s your thread. But the emphasis seemed to me to be on Dan Savage. And on what he said. But we agree that he’s not the only one who holds that message. He’s New Atheist as well as Gay Activist. There are others beside him on that side of the fence.

I guess anyone can call them self a follower of Jesus and claim anything they want in light of that, but I tend to hold the label of Christian very narrowly, which does I suppose make me pretty judgmental. However, the word judgmental really does not define itselfe as a stand alone label, now does it?
It could be used in a good way or a bad way, but either way it deserves further explanation. Still though, in saying that, we don't yet have an explanation from Wayseer, on just exactly what he means.

I think the way I used the term judgmental was pretty clear. Christians tend to be judgmental towards those within and without the fold. And those who use the term Christian narrowly are more judgmental than the rest.

It’s not in vogue for Calvinists and Arminians to judge one another non-Christian today. But at one time..... Catholics and Protestants aren’t as quick to judge one another non-Christian. But at one time..... And there are still some who judge the other side as non-Christian in both regards. And don’t ever tell most Christians you might not believe in the Trinity. Automatic judgment there. And that’s just judging within the Christian fold.

To me it’s just a part of the denominational character of Christianity and I am no longer surprised when someone refers to me as a non-Christian for whatever reason they might choose. It’s my hope that the grace of God is greater than their judgment. They are after all just following the human nature of Christianity as it’s expressed by it’s denominational character. And anymore, my only prayer for judgmental Christians is, forgive them for they know not what they do.

So far he's left it open to some interpretation, and before I can fully agree to being judgmental I first need to have something to judge. Otherwise I'd have to draw a conclusion based on very little. I'm thinking he likes Dan Savages message, but I don't want to fully say that until I know for sure. When I do know for sure where he stands and his point, then you will see judgmental in action. ...Till then, label me ...? condemnatory. That's more like having the desire to be judgmental but sort of holding it back.

Wayseer says he’s a Christian. So we should give him the benefit of the doubt that he didn’t care any more for the message of Dan Savage than we did. But there is one thing Savage said in his apology a few days ago, that is within my experience of most, not all, Christians. They tend to understand the bible selectively. I take that to mean interpretively. Though maybe Savage meant the remark to be more inclusive than that.

I have said since I’ve been here that the practice of biblical interpretation is the driving force of denominationalism. Parts of the bible are selectively nullified through interpretation. While other parts are selectively emphasized. In that way I can see the point that Savage made in that regard. Doesn’t mean I agree with his view of the bible. He views the bible as just an ancient document. Obviously not a document that any God had anything to do with. So actually, in spite of what he said, he too understands the bible selectively. And he tries to take his own selective understanding of the bible to a logical conclusion in his own way. Too bad it came out in this instance, in front of teenagers no less, in the way of badgering the witness. Bullying pure and simple. He said he isn’t anti Christian, only anti the bible. To most Christians, bible and Christian are the same thing. So to them he certainly was showing himself anti Christian.

So that I'm not quoted by you out of context, please allow me to re-quote myself with the full context that you simply picked a few words out of to make a sentence. The full statment was,
Originally Posted by Danus
To the Christian Savage is not the subject, his message, the world and how we see and react to it is the subject.

OK. It’s your thread. The message and how it’s being understood is the subject. If that’s the case, then the message will mean whatever the individual wants it to mean. Some will agree and some will disagree. I think I can safely say that you, I, and most Christians who posted on this thread, disagreed with the message of Dan Savage, and saw it as a clobber message against the bible. Richard Dawkins will agree with him. So will Penn and Teller. All of them think of the bible as BS.

There were kids in that conferance cheering what Savage had to say. They agreed the bible is BS. There were other kids who did nothing, neither cheering nor walking out. And some walked out. There’s evidence now that the kids who walked out didn’t do so under their own initiative. They walked out on the instigation of a teacher, who may have been a Christian. Guess Christian kids aren’t as prone to just do things willy nilly as non-Christian kids. A good thing perhaps?

No matter how one looks at it, Savage’s message was inappropriate for the venue and what he promised to deliver. And he certainly showed he doesn’t have a clue what bullying really is, being a practitioner of it himself without his own knowledge. In his apology, he makes no apology for his bullying. Nor for his message. Only for the use of a couple of bad words. He’s still as clueless as he ever was. So much for Dan Savage being an activist against bullying. Anyone who asks him to come speak to their group now that his view of bullying has become so evident, is just one who agrees with his message. And there may be more who agree with it, than not.

All you people who have kids, better be sure where they’re going when out of your sight. And check out the speakers they may have to listen to. And if there’s a Dan Savage type speaker, best not let them go. Or at least let your kids know where the BS really lies.

FC

 

[Former Christian]

Wayseer

Response to #84

Was Jesus a bully when he responded to a wannabe follower - let the dead bury the dead?

Was Jesus a bully when he referred to Gentiles who asked for help as 'dogs'.

If you answer No, then you have to respond with the same answer to Savage. To do anything else is hypocritical.

What I am suggesting is that people seem rather upset at Savage but are rather reluctant to apply the same criteria to Jesus' words - which are every bit as confronting, intolerant, and demeaning as anything uttered by Savage.

Wait, let me check again. Yep, under Christian it says yes. Well, if Jesus is a bully to you, why on earth would you want to follow him? Seems to me common sense would dictate that a person shouldn’t have anything to do with a bully. So you just decided that you would follow this one? And since Jesus is in the image of God, doesn’t that make the God you believe in a bully as well? Jeesh. What kind of a religion are you believing in? And since you believe in that kind of a religion, that means you are either a masochist or a bully yourself. Glad you’re in Australia. You and I wouldn’t get on well. I don’t take no **** from bullies or people who would use the bible to justify hurting their own kids. I’m usually a pretty tolerant guy. But....

Looking at the rest of your responses, I can see this post will mean nothing to you. But I went ahead and answered it anyway seeing as it was addressed to me. Maybe someone else will see the right way, the real light.

NC

 

[Danus]

Thank you FC, Much better.

Yes I am judgmental. I judge the world and others. I hold a judgement about things.

The one thing I can't do is sentence. I've no power to do that, and the ultimate judgment, and vengeance is God's. I believe we are all called to judge and judge rightly.

 

[tessiewebb]

Thank you FC, Much better.

Yes I am judgmental. I judge the world and others. I hold a judgement about things.

The one thing I can't do is sentence. I've no power to do that, and the ultimate judgment, and vengeance is God's. I believe we are all called to judge and judge rightly.

Thank you, Father God! For displaying Your wisdom openly!

 

[Milk-Drops]

Long story short. Dan Savage said the Bible has been used to justify horrible things in history and that society has managed to mature and not use out of context, or sometimes in context scripture to bully people.

As he said this some kids and parents left. Probably because he "dared" to point out some basic history and show that the Bible dose say things that can be used to justify some bullying.

When he finished talking about that section he said to the crowd that they can tell the Pansy Asses to come back in because he is done beating up the Bible and it seems that they can't take what has been dished out.

Was the Pansy Ass things in bad taste? Yeah, is there some truth to it though? Yeah, Bullying of LGBT has been a problem and it has been ignored vastly with scripture being used to justify it.

Some in this thread have shown that they don't get the message Dan has actually said and prefer to spew vitriol and self boast. That is the point and why I feel a great cynicism for many institutions in this country.

Mainly because its like watching a group of people whooping and hollering while someone horrendously beats someone claiming that its justified because the person was a tad rude. That is what I'm seeing here on a few other sites I have visited that have a Christian slant to this story.

 

[Former Christian]

Danus

People who judge others are no different than Dan Savage. Bullies. Hang on to your bible interpretations if it makes you happy. But don’t judge other believers or their interpretations just because they don’t come up to your own standards. How is your judgment of people like Dan savage going to be taken seriously if you judge everyone the same way? Peter and the Wolf. Are Christians really intended to be judges in this life, or are they supposed to be witnesses? Witnesses of their own judgments?

Matthew 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
Luke 6:37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:
John 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

Consider those verses in their context. The whole idea is that if you want to judge, be ready to be judged. The Christian you judge a non-Christian is the one who’ll judge you a non-Christian in return. Of course, you’re free to make these verses of none affect by your judgments.

Christianity is full of denominations that judge each other to not be up to snuff. Catholics, Lutherans, Reformed and Presbyterians, many of the Baptist Churches, the Eastern Orthodox. Everyone else is not up to their standard and can’t take communion with them until they convert to their way of thinking. That’s judgment my friend. That’s what it leads to.

I’ve opposed the idea since I’ve been here. Only to be met with denominations have their place. Is that what Jesus is teaching Christians? Paul? If so, I don’t want any part of it. That’s not only stupid, it’s sin of the flesh according to Paul himself. Denominationalism is division. The ultimate expression of division. Where divisions not only judge each other they exclude each other, thinking they have some kind of God given authority to do so.

Dan Savage judged the bible to be BS. And judged the Christians who believe in the bible to be BS believers. Dan Savage is a bully, plain and simple. Do you really want to be like him? In the name of “We’re called to judge and judge rightly� Is that the gospel you want to preach, “We judge rightly, follow us if you want eternal life� Where’s the cross of Christ in that?

Jesus said that oneness among the believers will be a sign to the world that Jesus was truly sent by God. Do you agree with denominational Christianity, saying in effect he was wrong to say this? Go ahead and judge away.

But then, I’m not even a Christian. What do I know? I’m not near as wise as the Christians called to judge rightly. I speak as to an intelligent man. Judge for yourself what I say.

NC

 

[Former Christian]

Meatballsub

Not what Dan Savage said in the convention. He called the bible BS. He apologized for the words, but not the thought. And what you're seeing on the Christian forums is probably just what you want to see. You do seem to have an agenda. Savage is a bully who hasn't a clue what bullying really is. He shouldn't have been asked to speak at that event in the first place. Instead of speaking on bullying, he spoke according to his gay agenda. In a bullying tone with bullying words. Inappropriately to the venue. But you won't be able to see that. You just want to defend the man. That's fine, I'm sure. So long as everyone understands that defense of Dan Savage and his idea that the bible is BS is your agenda.

NC

 

[reba]

FC the question is simple. Would you have Charlie Manson babyset your kids?

Or would you use your wisdom, as a parent to judge it might not be a safe thing to do?

Or would you use your wisdom, as a parent to decide it might not be a safe thing to do?

Or would you use your wisdom, as a parent to think it might not be a safe thing to do?

Or would you use your wisdom, as a parent to come to the conclusion it might not be a safe thing to do?

The fact that you disagree with Danus, or anyone else is a judgement.

 

[tessiewebb]

Long story short. Dan Savage said the Bible has been used to justify horrible things in history......As he said this some kids and parents left. Probably because he "dared" to point out some basic history and show that the Bible dose say things that can be used to justify some bullying.

When he finished talking about that section he said to the crowd that they can tell the Pansy A to come back in because he is done beating up the Bible and it seems that they can't take what has been dished out.

The Qu'ran has been used to justify horrible acts throughout its history and in bullying people into taking on the religion or die. The Qu'ran recommends killing homosexuals. But Savage didn't bad-mouth the Qu'ran, probably thinking the Bible much safer to malign and speaking about it badly a much easier way to get his agenda heard.

To his quite apparent surprise, much of his audience got up and walked out. He resorted, like many another bully, to name-calling.

"Couldn't take" what he said? Actually, it was not because of what he said about bullying that they walked out. It was exactly his foul mouthed attack on the Bible that brought about the walk out.

Ask me how I know. Okay, I'll tell you, Meatballsub, because I felt and behaved exactly the same way, only I just did the cut off in the privacy of my livingroom. I give them a standing O for walking out on him in public, en masse, turning their backs to his ignorance in thinking them so naive as to not understand his despiteful use of their holy Book for his agenda.