Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Completely baseless assertions. You show that you are willing to just stereotype and make up characteristics that have no foundation. I don't LOVE persecution at all. I don't like and don't want to see it. I was quite happy a few decades ago when we were a country that respected God and faith instead of morphing into this culture where people think a person should be ruined forever by their words and not their actions.
Don't agree? Then back it up. Show me one verse in the Bible that teaches I get "heaven points" for being persecuted. What it does teach is that Christians will be hated and we are pretty much the most hated religion. That factor alone shows the truth of the gospel.
You cannot reasonably accuse others of stereotyping when you claim that atheists are not nice. Regardless of your personal experience, which again I question how accurate that information is, you cannot reasonably say that all atheists are unkind. It's dishonest. It is a lie.
As I said, I see it every day. Even if you don't share that experience, your idea that atheists are never nice to Christians is still wrong becasue reality is not formed purely on one's own perspective. It's the perspective of all people.
It's a shame if what you're saying about your experience is true. But I will say again, first of all that you probably interact with atheists without knowing they are atheists all the time, and of course to look at how you behave in front of them. Are you, intentionally or not, coming off in a negative way to them in so that it generates a negative response from them? These are questions that all civil people have to ask themselves from time to time. And that's not a point exclusive to you. The atheists you are claiming are mean to you should probably ask themselves the same question.
I'll also say that regardless of personal experience, there has been no evidence to suggest that atheists as a collective are out to get Christians.
I was not aware there were laws in the Constitution supporting such behavior. You make the mistake of assuming that because some local laws were not yet determined as to their constitutionality in the past that they must have been constitutional.
So what, it's the same principle. You can't use the "it's the law, shut up and follow it" argument if you dared protest when the law didn't swing your way. The same federal government treated the Native Americans horribly. And it was done under the letter of the law. Guess what? That doesn't mean that they were not persecuted for who they were.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wallflash
No one is suggesting you cannot try and change laws you don't like. What has been said is that what you call persecution and intrusion is your ability to mistreat others with impunity being eliminated to comply with the Constitution, or that society will now react harshly to stupid statements from homophobes instead of them being given free passes for their actions and words as was done in the past.
All you are trying to do is justify persecution because you think homosexuality is good and moral. And we are just ignorant homophobes. That doesn't change reality. Changing the definition of persecution doesn't either. Let's look at the definition:
Persecution - hostility and ill-treatment, especially because of race or political or religious beliefs..
Are atheists hostile towards Christians? Most certainly at least on a verbal level.
Are Christians ill-treated for their faith? Absolutely. We are mocked and ridiculed frequently by atheists.
Demanding that Christians surrender their freedom of religion on the altar of a new moral standard is persecution. How about just respecting a difference in beliefs? Is that so hard?
Given the fact that Christians use to burn people who did not agree with them at the stake, it hard to feel bad for them when their plans occasionally become disrupted.
Maybe that was payback for the Romans feeding them to the lions.
I was not aware there were laws in the Constitution supporting such behavior. You make the mistake of assuming that because some local laws were not yet determined as to their constitutionality in the past that they must have been constitutional.
No one is suggesting you cannot try and change laws you don't like. What has been said is that what you call persecution and intrusion is your ability to mistreat others with impunity being eliminated to comply with the Constitution, or that society will now react harshly to stupid statements from homophobes instead of them being given free passes for their actions and words as was done in the past.
But no one has suggested that you have no right to try and alter laws you don't agree with through the political process. Just that you regard being made to comply with them persecution and intrusion because you used to be able to get away with it in the "good old days".
Where have you been?
The Constitution has legally sanctioned the enslavement and killing of one race, the near genocide and epic robbery of another, the oppression of a gender...and even currently (according to the SCOTUS) sanctions the execution of any human at the level of development whereby they are still in the womb.
No document ever written has legally allowed greater atrocities than the U. S. Constitution. And those atrocities were, in fact, carried out...and some continue to be carried out.
Then why is it any different for us to resist against laws that violate our right to freedom of religion?
As far as I can make out, no one is trying to suppress your freedom of religion. Religious freedom does not mean a freedom to impose on us though. That we will suppress!
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Yet it's perfectly fine for atheist to make swathing generalizations against Bible believing Christians? You certainly do that by labeling us as "fundies". The fact that it sounds a lot like "dummies" probably isn't coincidental either.
'Fundie' is a lot gentler than 'fundamentalist'. You are putting the "dummies" connotation onto it, not us. Don't put ideas in our heads.
I will give Mordant some credit for maintaining a neutral civil tone and not resorting to personal attacks most of the time, but I do recall past experiences of mockery and snide comments from him as well. I don't recall any past engagements with you.
I initiate discussions simply sharing my opinion. It isn't long before your side warps it into a personal attack against me. Almost every time. With the level of venom and vitriol launched at me and other Christians here, why would I have the impression that atheists are nice to Christians? Like I pointed out last week, you can make the same points without resorting to offensive terminology like calling the Bible a piece of garbage.
Yet it's perfectly fine for atheist to make swathing generalizations against Bible believing Christians? You certainly do that by labeling us as "fundies". The fact that it sounds a lot like "dummies" probably isn't coincidental either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
Where have you been?
The Constitution has legally sanctioned the enslavement and killing of one race, the near genocide and epic robbery of another, the oppression of a gender...and even currently (according to the SCOTUS) sanctions the execution of any human at the level of development whereby they are still in the womb.
No document ever written has legally allowed greater atrocities than the U. S. Constitution. And those atrocities were, in fact, carried out...and some continue to be carried out.
If you ever learn to get the point of what's being said and discuss that you just might become worth responding to .
So what, it's the same principle. You can't use the "it's the law, shut up and follow it" argument if you dared protest when the law didn't swing your way. The same federal government treated the Native Americans horribly. And it was done under the letter of the law. Guess what? That doesn't mean that they were not persecuted for who they were.
It's arguable.
The question is really whether we should follow the law, follow only just laws, follow the constitution, or follow only the just parts of the constitution.
I completely agree with you. There have been terrible laws in the past. There are terrible laws now. What we really need to do is determine what is proper, then decide whether our laws adhere to that standard.
I would argue that discrimination is bad, and should be avoided. Do you agree, or disagree?
Quote:
All you are trying to do is justify persecution because you think homosexuality is good and moral. And we are just ignorant homophobes. That doesn't change reality. Changing the definition of persecution doesn't either. Let's look at the definition:
Persecution - hostility and ill-treatment, especially because of race or political or religious beliefs..
Are atheists hostile towards Christians? Most certainly at least on a verbal level.
Are Christians ill-treated for their faith? Absolutely. We are mocked and ridiculed frequently by atheists.
Demanding that Christians surrender their freedom of religion on the altar of a new moral standard is persecution. How about just respecting a difference in beliefs? Is that so hard?
Part of the problem revolves around the definition. If you accept the definition above, and then equate ill-treatment with rudeness, then I have to agree with you. Christians are being persecuted. The problem is that you have diluted the definition of persecution so much that EVERY group can claim persecution. I can claim persecution as an atheist because you treat me rudely. I can claim persecution as an immigrant because Donal Trump treats me rudely. I can claim persecution as a relatively high wage earner because my marginal tax rate is higher than most. Where ones it stop? Persecution as a concept becomes meaningless.
Why can't we just respect a difference in beliefs? Mostly because Christians try to have government force their beliefs on others. Earlier in this thread you showed support for a post office displaying an banner with religious overtones. That certainly doesnt respect my beliefs.
So what, it's the same principle. You can't use the "it's the law, shut up and follow it" argument if you dared protest when the law didn't swing your way. The same federal government treated the Native Americans horribly. And it was done under the letter of the law. Guess what? That doesn't mean that they were not persecuted for who they were.
All you are trying to do is justify persecution because you think homosexuality is good and moral. And we are just ignorant homophobes. That doesn't change reality. Changing the definition of persecution doesn't either. Let's look at the definition:
Persecution - hostility and ill-treatment, especially because of race or political or religious beliefs..
Are atheists hostile towards Christians? Most certainly at least on a verbal level.
Are Christians ill-treated for their faith? Absolutely. We are mocked and ridiculed frequently by atheists.
Demanding that Christians surrender their freedom of religion on the altar of a new moral standard is persecution. How about just respecting a difference in beliefs? Is that so hard?
The problem is that you want your difference in beliefs to allow you to discriminate and otherwise mistreat others that don't agree with your faith , while also dumbing down our educational system to fit your religious myth . Other than that no one gives a damn about your religious beliefs .
The rest of your post isn't really worth wasting time on
Demanding that Christians surrender their freedom of religion on the altar of a new moral standard is persecution. How about just respecting a difference in beliefs? Is that so hard?
Say what?
We are demanding that religion in general and Christians in particular do not impose their idea of morality on us. Like trying to force schools to teach creation as science! I mean, Good Grief! Stopping you from doing that is persecution? I don't think so. It's more like self defense or defense of our children and society. You want us to respect your difference in beliefs? Yes fine but not when you try to force them on us and our children.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
