Are those people walking out because of what he's saying?

[Edit: Oh, yeah they did...fuck 'em.]

Look at all the closed minds ensuring they stay closed.

FUCK THEM INDEED.

Ironic that this anti-bullying advocate uses bully tactics against some mere students. There are better ways to get your message across.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

Are those people walking out because of what he's saying?
[Edit: Oh, yeah they did...fuck 'em.]


How dare you make such accusations! It's not their fault they put out the taco bar while someone was speaking...it was a simple planning error!

>> ^longde:

Ironic that this anti-bullying advocate uses bully tactics against some mere students. There are better ways to get your message across.


I don't see any bullying tactics. What I see is someone saying that a Book written by people some 1600 years ago isn't right, and you shouldn't believe it. He didn't hit anyone, he didn't laugh in anyones face, they're out in the hall together standing up for what they believe in. Dan Savage is standing up for what he believes in, which both are allowed to do.

Your definition of bullying might be a bit too broad.

>> ^BoneRemake:

Look at all the closed minds ensuring they stay closed.
FUCK THEM INDEED.


Maybe barreling into the 'bible is retarded' was not the best way to approach the subject. And I'm guessing the majority of those who walked out weren't offended about what he was saying and just saw the opportunity to gtfo of an assembly that they had been forced to attend.

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Sunday, April 29th, 2012 1:42am PDT - promote requested by Lann.

I don't think they were forced to attend anything. This was at the Seattle National Journalism Convention, and anyone who showed up was there voluntarily. Which makes their walking out possibly planned and even more rude.

>> ^Confucius:

>> ^BoneRemake:
Look at all the closed minds ensuring they stay closed.
FUCK THEM INDEED.

Maybe barreling into the 'bible is retarded' was not the best way to approach the subject. And I'm guessing the majority of those who walked out weren't offended about what he was saying and just saw the opportunity to gtfo of an assembly that they had been forced to attend.

*controversy

Adding video to channels (Controversy) - requested by MrFisk.

He calls bullshit, which is shorthand for a long and complicated polite sentence. The rest is declarative remarks, isn't it?

Since when did clearly stating a point of view become bullying? Especially when the thing you are complaining about has been used to demonize and attack you for your entire life?

I don't see any bullying.

>> ^longde:

Ironic that this anti-bullying advocate uses bully tactics against some mere students. There are better ways to get your message across.

Dan Savage's Blog this morning:

I would like to apologize for describing that walk out as a pansy-assed move. I wasn't calling the handful of students who left pansies (2800+ students, most of them Christian, stayed and listened), just the walk-out itself. But that's a distinction without a difference—kinda like when religious conservatives tells their gay friends that they "love the sinner, hate the sin." They're often shocked when their gay friends get upset because, hey, they were making a distinction between the person (lovable!) and the person's actions (not so much!). But gay people feel insulted by "love the sinner, hate the sin" because it is insulting. Likewise, my use of "pansy-assed" was insulting, it was name-calling, and it was wrong. And I apologize for saying it.

As for what I said about the Bible...

A smart Christian friend involved politics writes: "In America today you just can't refer, even tangentially, to someone's religion as 'bullshit.' You should apologize for using that word."

I didn't call anyone's religion bullshit. I did say that there is bullshit—"untrue words or ideas"—in the Bible. That is being spun as an attack on Christianity. Which is bullshhh… which is untrue. I was not attacking the faith in which I was raised. I was attacking the argument that gay people must be discriminated against—and anti-bullying programs that address anti-gay bullying should be blocked (or exceptions should be made for bullying "motivated by faith")—because it says right there in the Bible that being gay is wrong. Yet the same people who make that claim choose to ignore what the Bible has to say about a great deal else. I did not attack Christianity. I attacked hypocrisy. My remarks can only be read as an attack on all Christians if you believe that all Christians are hypocrites. Which I don't believe.

On other occasions I've made the same point without using the word bullshit...

We can learn to ignore what the bible says about gay people the same way we have learned to ignore what the Bible says about clams and figs and farming and personal grooming and menstruation and masturbation and divorce and virginity and adultery and slavery. Let's take slavery. We ignore what the Bible says about slavery in both the Old and New Testaments. And the authors of the Bible didn't just fail to condemn slavery. They endorsed slavery: "Slaves obey your masters." In his book Letter to a Christian Nation, Sam Harris writes that the Bible got the easiest moral question humanity has ever faced wrong. The Bible got slavery wrong. What are the odds that the Bible got something as complicated as human sexuality wrong? I'd put those odds at about 100%.

It shouldn't be hard for modern Christians to ignore what the bible says about gay people because modern Christians—be they conservative fundamentalists or liberal progressives—already ignore most of what the Bible says about sex and relationships. Divorce is condemned in the Old and New Testaments. Jesus Christ condemned divorce. Yet divorce is legal and there is no movement to amend state constitutions to ban divorce. Deuteronomy says that if a woman is not a virgin on her wedding night she shall be dragged to her father's doorstep and stoned to death. Callista Gingrich lives. And there is no effort to amend state constitutions to make it legal to stone the third Mrs. Gingrich to death.

...and maybe I shouldn't have used the word bullshit in this instance. But while it may have been a regrettable word choice, my larger point stands: If believers can ignore what the Bible says about slavery, they can ignore what the Bible says about homosexuality. (The Bible also says some beautiful things that are widely ignored: "Sell what you possess and give to the poor... and come, follow me.” You better get right on that, Joel.)

Finally, here's Mark Twain on the Bible:

It is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies.

I'm not guilty of saying anything that hasn't been said before and—yes—said much better. What is "bullshit" in this context but "upwards of a thousand lies" in modern American English? And while those slamming me most loudly for "pansy-assed" may be on the right, they are also in the right. I see their point and, again, I apologize for describing the walk-out as "pansy-assed." But they are wrong when they claim that I "attacked Christianity." There are untrue things in the Bible—and the Koran and the Book of Mormon and every other "sacred" text—and you don't have to take my word for it: just look at all the biblical "shoulds," "shall nots," and "abominations" that religious conservatives already choose to ignore. They know that not everything in the Bible is true.

All Christians read the Bible selectively. Some read it hypocritically—and the hypocrites react very angrily when anyone has the nerve to point that out.

*promote

Go Dan go!

(Thats not a call for him to leave, just a general encourag... oh you know what i mean)

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Sunday, April 29th, 2012 7:58am PDT - promote requested by moodonia.

It's perfectly reasonable to call any idea bullshit, as long as you can back it up. Religion deserves no special protection.

But, Christianity is total bullshit. Just say it, Dan.

I'm not Christian or religious and I recognize what Dan Savage said was offensive. Savage is the classic liberal bigot.

Ah. A new person to ignore.

Done.


>> ^TangledThorns:

I'm not Christian or religious and I recognize what Dan Savage said was offensive. Savage is the classic liberal bigot.

The reason Dan apologized, I think, is because the people who most needed to hear his message walked out and refused to listen to what he had to say because of the way he delivered it. He wound up being left "preaching to the choir." And that's fine if the goal was to score a few laugh points with the people who already agree with him. But that clearly isn't his goal. He's trying to fix these problems. And these issues will not be solved by mocking those who don't agree with him. I have huge respect for him recognizing this and admitting he might have unintentionally poured gas on the fire rather than extinguish it.

The shit-eating grins on the faces of the bigots walking out put a lie to any attempted justification.

I really don't understand how our supposedly advanced species can still wallow in these moronic notions that are enforced by religion. The older I get the closer I come to a total lose of faith (ironic I know) in the decency of the human species and our ability to one day achieve a society and culture that leaves behind superstition, and flights of fancy, for an intelligent and peaceful (on a personal as well as societal scale) culture.

I am scared I don' know where we are headed and I am not seeing a light at the end of our tunnel.

Much like Jesus*, today I am feeding the uneducated masses. So go on, troll, enlighten me. Do tell how what he said was offensive.

Was it a philosophical difference? Do you feel it should it be ok for the religious to abuse gay people? Or own slaves? Or sell their daughters? Or anyone of the hundreds of batshit insane bullshit (and I make no apologies for calling it that) rules that populate the bible?

Or maybe it's a factual dispute. You feel that those nasty, hurtful things aren't actually in the bible (they are).

Possibly you're offended by that t-shirt? Really Dan... come on. You're supposed to be the one with the fashion sense but that colour is all wrong for you....

Anyway, I digress. I await your response with greatsome not very much enthusiasm.
>> ^TangledThorns:

I'm not Christian or religious and I recognize what Dan Savage said was offensive. Savage is the classic liberal bigot.


*Obviously I am way more awesome than Jesus. For a start, I'm 34.

It might be if he actually used any bullying tactics but I didn't see any. I find it more ironic that supposed student journalists would walk out without listening to whatever he had to say no matter how distasteful they found his message.>> ^longde:

Ironic that this anti-bullying advocate uses bully tactics against some mere students. There are better ways to get your message across.

If the bible is the text which you follow, you should follow it all if you are going to present it as the answer to everything.

If you have trouble doing that, then recognize it as a book of guidance instead of a book of rules. Take the good points of it apply them, look at the bad points of it and use them as a reason for blind faith being a bad choice.

Then recognize that you don't want people telling you what to believe, so you should stop preventing others from doing things which has no bearing on your life. Let the gay people get married, haven't seen a married couple yet that makes me wish I were married...and happiness seems like it should be a point in getting married. Most of them seem miserable or indifferent at best. Hardly hurting the "sanctity of marriage" if the current examples of it make such a poor offering.

Bigotry on the Ballot
A broad anti-gay initiative in North Carolina threatens
basic rights and ought to be watched closely nationwide.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/30/opinion/bigotry-on-the-ballot.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha211_20120430

Stupid bitch at 1:24 with a cross between her mammaries walking out crying because the basis for her entire life was being threatened.

Can we just hurry up and make it a high crime to be religious already? Fuck those closed-minded elitist assholes.

I met this guy not long ago who calls himself "Preacha Paul"--look him up on Youtube. He told me he found God while in prison and he needed his salvation. He said he didn't used to believe in god but in the same sentence says he used to "hate god," which means he did believe there was a god, he just didn't like him, maybe because he hated himself. Oh, did I mention he's a registered sex offender? Yeah, this slightly overweight white guy raps about the bible and bullshit like gays are going to hell because they're sinners, etc. Come on, really? You're one to talk. You're a fucking criminal, and you think god hates "his children" simply because of who they choose to be with? Go to hell--if there is one.

Let's see...

A bunch of students were invited to a seminar that described as being about "bullying". They are instead exposed to anti-religious bigotry and sexual innuendo. Rather than sit and listen to insults directed at their belief system, they decided to leave. As they leave, the speaker taunts them further and uses profanities. Oh - yeah - that's not bullying. :eyeroll: This guy is a class-A hypocrite and a jack@$$.

Let's change the parameters slightly. A bunch of journalism students are invited to a speech about Community Service, and the speaker is an Iraq War veteran who starts calling the Koran a bunch of bullcrap, and talking about how much he likes to dress up his lover in a burqa (wink wink). 100 or so Muslim students are offended and get up to leave, and the guy calls the audience's attention to them and starts calling them a bunch of pansy-@$$ cowards. Ha ha ha. Still "not bullying"?

I feel sorry for the kids, but frankly I hope this slimeball keeps doing stuff like this. It proves to everyone (except for the radical, leftist fringe lunatic crowd) just what a sleaze he is. He's a bigot just as bad as the bigots he claims to condemn. He isn't against bigotry and hate. He's just against any bigotry and hate of which he hasn't personally approved. That makes him a demagogue, and his audience is simply other bigots... Bigots like this...

"Can we just hurry up and make it a high crime to be religious already?"

Classic anti-religious hate and bigotry on parade. Savage of course is constantly going around fomenting such sad, unfortunate, hate-filled suckers. Amazing that these same zealots can mourn the difficulty of achieving a 'peaceful society', and yet fail to see that the primary reason for all this violence is staring at them every time they look in the mirror.

He used profanity in a sentence. That isn't bullying.

He did call those kids pansy-asses for walking out. In a polite tone of voice, actually.

What never ceases to amaze me is the inability of conservatives to think with any clarity or nuance.

It is like that Gary Larson cartoon, where the dog owner has a long conversation with the dog, whose name is Ginger. Very complicated and nuanced. And then you see what the dog actually hears -- white noise with "Ginger" showing up now and then.

That is how (some) conservatives seem to hear. The word "bullshit" and "bible" are in the same paragraph and they can't seem to hear what is actually said. They just hear "bullshit" and "bible."

It isn't as if these are stupid people. I know they aren't. But they hear these trigger words and their brains and ability to process language just stops.

It's weird. I swear.

It shouldn't matter whether or not he was referring to the bible as a whole or just some ideas within the bible. Christianity is bullshit. Its not bullying to say that, its right and proper to criticise any belief system. Being gay is as much a belief as being black. Thats the difference.

I don't necessarily think mocking peoples strongly held beliefs is the best way to sway their opinions, and by insulting those that walked out he perhaps not only alienated them but also those christians that chose to remain.

I'm pretty sure his point isn't that the bible is terrible... but he's tired of people living 'by the code of Leviticus on this one issue, and no other."



Go all the way or go home i think he's saying.

What never ceases to amaze me is the inability of conservatives to think with any clarity or nuance.

What is more amazing is the logical pretzels that liberals tie around themselves in order to justify thier bigotry and hate. Savage was attacking thier religious beliefs, and he was doing it in a forum that was supposed to be 'anti-bullying'. You see, it is entirely possible to share an anti-bullying message without attacking religion. What a wild idea! But as with most liberals, he just couldn't help himself from being a rude, selfish, hypocritical jerk. So when He has a captive audience, he uses the the opportunity to flash his bigotry, and then to insult those who were offended by it. Yeah. 'Nuanced'...

The speech was not titled, "Christianity is B.S." If it was appropriately titled, then those who walked out could have just decided not to attend in the first place and saved Savage the embarressment of being shown up as a total douche. But Savage did a bait-and-switch. A bunch of kids sat down and he flies off on his personal obsessions about religion. The apologist justifications you guys are proffering up are not so much about 'nuance' as they are "I agree with his bigotry, and I like it when people I hate get what I think is coming to them. You Jesus people should just shut up and take it."

Whether you agree with Christianity or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is that this guy disresepcted and insulted fellow human beings, and thought it was funny. He showed his true colors - rude, selfish, and hypocritical. His lame 'apology' (like the apologies of most liberals) isn't really an apology. It's the typical, "I'm sorry if YOU WERE OFFENDED by my important message" bullcrap. I reject such faux crocodile tears, and also reject the lame arguments trying to justify his bigotry. It isn't complicated. You like his particular brand of bigotry, so that makes it perfectly OK in your perverse, sick minds. So much for leftists and thier sanctimonious 'tolerance' bologna. Tolerance is only for the people you approve of, eh?

If a journalism school advertised a speech about "Happiness and Tolerance", and the headliner was some gay bashing @$$hat, should all the gays in the audience be forced to sit down and listen to his 'clarity and nuance'? What a load of bullcrap you liberals swallow on a daily basis. I can't fathom having to live a life so dominated by that much hypocrisy, irrational hate, and bitterness that such bad behavior gets dismissed as just some BS sort of 'nuance'. How pathetic.

Yep. Unable to understand nuance.

And so rude about it, too. Tsk tsk. I feel positively bullied!

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

...as with most...most liberals...you liberals...


It's pretty cool how you know so many people so well as to be able to lump them together in your rants.

I won't even begin to try to explain to you how ironic it is to hear you say "I can't fathom having to live a life so dominated by that much hypocrisy, irrational hate, and bitterness..."

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

a load of nonsenical rambling...

Tell you what, the day a single preacher, nun or even believer gets physically fucking assaulted by a homosexual for their beliefs, you will have something approaching a point.

Meanwhile, back in the real world (a place you don't seem to visit very often), religious bigotry is actively ruining gay kids lives. Aside from glee, wtf have gays ever done to them?

And just for the record... Even the NSPA and JEA (the hosts of the speech) condemn Savage and pretty much call what he did bullying...

http://studentpressblogs.org/nspa/?p=363

"In his attempt to denounce bullying, Mr. Savage belittled the faith of others – an action that we do not support. Ridicule of others’ faith has no place in our programs, any more than ridicule of the LGBT community would."

They get a round of applause for an ACTUAL apology, as opposed to the load of bull Savage puked up trying to 'nuance' his way out of an apology.

won't even begin to try to explain to you how ironic it is

Perhaps - then you see the point. You took the bait. You see - how is is possible for MY generalized comments about liberals to be hypocritical and ironic, but Savage's comments are 'nuanced'? You can't have it both ways. Just admit it. Savage was a hypocritical, bullying jerk who stuck his foot in his mouth and showed the world he's a bigot. He should just apologize for it. A REAL apology - not the stupid "sorry you don't really understand me..." crap he spit out.

Tell you what, the day a single preacher, nun or even believer gets physically assaulted by a homosexual for their beliefs, you will have something approaching a point.

http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/anger-over-prop-8-erupts-in-san-francisco/nKjWD/
http://www.wnd.com/2008/11/80220/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4Xb-au-wpU

Not that I expect you to concede the matter, but to imply that no gay person EVER in the history of humanity has attacked a Christian because of what they believe is pure sophistry. There are bad actors on both sides of the issue, and since Christians are the big-dog in the US of course there is a lot more bad acting on thier side. I merely point out that there is an ugly underside to the LBGT community, and pin-heads like Savage show it. If the real message is true tolerance - which it SHOULD be - then both sides need to clamp down on thier offenders. Yeah - Christians need to repent and start acting more Christlike too. You can disagree with the gay lifestyle and not have to persecute it.

You're free to take my singular "taking the bait" as some sort of perverse validation of what you want to believe, but nowhere above did I ever even mention Savage's remarks, only the people who walked out.

How does it feel to go fishing and catch something that wasn't the fish you were hoping for?

The laws in Leviticus do not apply to Christians; they were for Israel, for that time and place only. That was the Old Covenant, and Christians are under the New Covenant. In the New Testament, Romans 1:24-27, I Timothy 1:10, I Cor. 6:9-10, and Jude 7 clearly identify homosexuality as a sin. So, immediately his diatribe about shellfish and menstration is a strawman, because none of that applies to Christians in the first place.

In regards to slavery, Dan is purposefully misreprenting the bible, because it does not endorse it. In the Old Testament, there are rules that govern the treatment of slaves in Israel, but in Israel, slavery was not the same thing as it was in modern times. Slavery there was essentially a kind of profession, where people would sell themselves into slavery to have daily food and shelter in exchange for their labor.

Dan is also deliberately misrepresenting what the New Testament says about slavery. For one, Paul did say there are no slaves:

Colossians 3:11

Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all

The bible says that every person has intrinsic worth and value. It says that all people are made in the image of God and He doesn't love the poor man any less than the rich man. In fact very often it condemns the rich man.

Dan also deliberately misrepresents what Paul wrote in the letter to Philemon, because it is the exact opposite of what he implied! Paul told Philemon to let his slave go, and if need be, Paul would compensate him out of his own pocket. Paul told Philemon that his slave had far more value as a free man, and what he said was actually a command to let him go.

Philemon 1:14-21

But I was willing to do nothing without your consent, that your goodness would not be as of necessity, but of free will. For perhaps he was therefore separated from you for a while, that you would have him forever, no longer as a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother, especially to me, but how much rather to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.

If then you count me a partner, receive him as you would receive me. But if he has wronged you at all, or owes you anything, put that to my account. I, Paul, write this with my own hand: I will repay it (not to mention to you that you owe to me even your own self besides). Yes, brother, let me have joy from you in the Lord. Refresh my heart in the Lord. Having confidence in your obedience, I write to you, knowing that you will do even beyond what I say

As far as the reactions from some of the people in this thread go, it's very typical of the sift. The fact is, many of its most vocal members are self-admitted anti-theists. The sift loves videos that bash Christians, and loves anyone who says nasty things against the bible or Christians in general. It doesn't matter if its true, or if it even makes any sense; people who bash Christians and the bible are instant heros here. A pretense of tolerance and equality is brought up when these subjects come up, but hypocritically Christians are always exempt, and often there is a "string em up" mentality as we see in this thread. That the sift denies this was inappropiate, especially at a conference about anti-bullying, is the least surprising thing I've seen today.

Let's face facts..if it were a Christian speaker saying things in a similar tone and manner to a group of homosexuals, it would be as if the world had ended, and many here would be calling for the speaker to be crucified.

"I merely point out that there is an ugly underside to the LBGT community, and pin-heads like Savage show it."

Ugh, really? Some sort of agenda? Go fuck your hat.

As far as the reactions from some of the people in this thread go, it's very typical of the sift. The fact is, many of its most vocal members are self-admitted anti-theists. The sift loves videos that bash Christians, and loves anyone who says nasty things against the bible or Christians in general.

I've seen lots of your posts. I wonder why are you here then?

I think you've forgotten about high school and college. I went to tons of 'voluntary' assemblies, speeches etc. when I didnt want to. Do you think the Journalism teacher took his journalism classes to the journalism convention? No you don't have to go to this convention where I the journalism teacher worked my ass off to have here and which whoever paid tons of money for.....but I am offering extra credit if you show up.

anyway ...we should poll the people there to see if they were they voluntarily or not.........


>> ^TheJehosephat:

I don't think they were forced to attend anything. This was at the Seattle National Journalism Convention, and anyone who showed up was there voluntarily. Which makes their walking out possibly planned and even more rude.
>> ^Confucius:
>> ^BoneRemake:
Look at all the closed minds ensuring they stay closed.
FUCK THEM INDEED.

Maybe barreling into the 'bible is retarded' was not the best way to approach the subject. And I'm guessing the majority of those who walked out weren't offended about what he was saying and just saw the opportunity to gtfo of an assembly that they had been forced to attend.

>> ^oOPonyOo:
As far as the reactions from some of the people in this thread go, it's very typical of the sift. The fact is, many of its most vocal members are self-admitted anti-theists. The sift loves videos that bash Christians, and loves anyone who says nasty things against the bible or Christians in general.
I've seen lots of your posts. I wonder why are you here then?


I'm here because I have been using the sift for a long time, probably since the year it made its debut. I decided to particpate in the community about a year ago, simply because the anti-christian bias was getting worse, and I felt I should represent the other side of the coin. Most people here are unaware that there is another side to the coin, but I can relate to them. I used to be agnostic and I didn't see any evidence for God or Spirit. I care about the people here because I know God loves them, even if they don't love Him back (or indeed hate Him with all their heart). God is so much bigger than what people know or believe about Him. It's not a question of these contentious social issues..it's simply about truth. These things are all peripheral to the question of truth. Before I was saved, I honestly desired to know the truth, irregardless of my preconceived notions. I could see the holes in my perspective, and my innate bias towards different people, ideas, and beliefs, and my emotional proclivities tainting what I understood about truth. I always saw obtaining the pure truth as the ideal goal. To understand what truth is, and how we could ever know it objectively, free from our subjective bias. I believe that was a blessing from God, a tender mercy from Heaven, to even be interested in such things. If you want to know the real truth, not just what you would like to believe, then God can reach you. If you don't, then even if God did reach you, you will ignore it, suppress it, mock it, or do everything other than follow it. I'm here to reach such people, and occassionally they will reach out. All I hope to do is help someone know the love of God for themselves.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Tell you what, the day a single preacher, nun or even believer gets physically assaulted by a homosexual for their beliefs, you will have something approaching a point.
http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/anger-over-prop-8-erupts-in-san-fr
ancisco/nKjWD/
http://www.wnd.com/2008/11/80220/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4Xb-au-wpU
Not that I expect you to concede the matter, but to imply that no gay person EVER in the history of humanity has attacked a Christian because of what they believe is pure sophistry. There are bad actors on both sides of the issue, and since Christians are the big-dog in the US of course there is a lot more bad acting on thier side. I merely point out that there is an ugly underside to the LBGT community, and pin-heads like Savage show it. If the real message is true tolerance - which it SHOULD be - then both sides need to clamp down on thier offenders. Yeah - Christians need to repent and start acting more Christlike too. You can disagree with the gay lifestyle and not have to persecute it.


Ok, I will concede that you have "something approaching a point". I don't condone violence of that type.
And while two wrongs don't make a right, frankly, I can understand where they're coming from.

@shinyblurry Some constructive criticism:

I think you go about prostylization the wrong way. I see you as kind of a digitized version of the guy who stands outside of bars with a megaphone and a sandwich board, passing judgement off on revelers that just don't care at best, and want to pick a fight with you at worst. Well intended, but not persuasive or well received.

You write these large blocks of text filled with Bible verses, judgement and a good deal of fire and brimstone. FYI: Bible verses, judgement, fire and brimstone only work on people who already believe in and fear God, just as you probably have no fear of Xenu, Allah or Mitt "White Horse" Romney (google it - funny story)

The Christians in my life that make me most sympathetic to Christianity are the ones who express their faith through actions, not words. I've only met a handful of these people in my life, but they've all made a positive impact on my life. These are the people who exude love, empathy, understanding and compassion. These are the people that say 'I love you' when you really need to hear 'I love you.' You feel it almost like an aura around them. And, in every case, I had to inquire about them to discover their faith - with none of that uncomfortable evangelizing that comes off more like used car sales pitch than deep expression of faith. And, unlike the used car sales pitch, when I did learn of their faith, I felt a genuine respect for it.

Of course you can't choose what you believe; what you believe chooses you, so none of these people have brought me any closer to God. But that's OK, because they've done something much more important, they've brought me closer to my fellow humans. They've shown me the power of empathy (not that I'm always the most empathetic person - I've a ways to go in that category) and how contagious just being a good person can really be.

I'm not sure if this helps you, especially considering it's pretty hard to refute aggressive atheists if you don't talk a great deal about your faith. Maybe a better path would be to understand where these atheists are coming from and what you have in common. Mutual respect. I don't know.

I mean you no offense by this comment, my religious spite phase has mostly passed. I'd like to see you have a little better time on the site and not be the subject of scorn. Many of the discussion you have with atheists seem like a waste of time for all parties, because it's just a clash of worldviews rather than an attempt to find common ground and make progress. Some of the atheists on this site can be very cruel. I don't really follow these long back and forth theological battles anymore, but if someone crosses that line and is cruel to you, I'd be happy to join in on your side. If that appeals to you, drop me a PM.

@dystopianfuturetoday

I think you go about prostylization the wrong way. I see you as kind of a digitized version of the guy who stands outside of bars with a megaphone and a sandwich board, passing judgement off on revelers that just don't care at best, and want to pick a fight with you at worst. Well intended, but not persuasive or well received.

I went about things the wrong way when I first arrived here, being somewhat of a neophyte to evangelism, which set the tone for the rest of my time here. Along the way, I've made some mistakes and said some things which further served to marginalize me, which the antitheists here have throughly capitalized on.

I was more hot blooded when I arrived, and cocky, being throughly schooled in all manner of philosophical argumentation, and having been *experienced* in the transcendent, I was more interested in dismantling arguments than showing the love of Christ. I regret that, but what's done is done. What's true is that God makes everything new.

My main failure was to take the bait of the innumerable insults that have been thrown my way. This was simply an immaturity in my faith, not really understanding what Jesus said about how I should react to them. He said to love that person, no matter how much they hate you. Pray for those who persecute you and despitefully use you. The insults are not as bothersome anymore. I'm more interested now in love than argument.

You write these large blocks of text filled with Bible verses, judgement and a good deal of fire and brimstone. FYI: Bible verses, judgement, fire and brimstone only work on people who already believe in and fear God, just as you probably have no fear of Xenu, Allah or Mitt "White Horse" Romney (google it - funny story)

I have a wide variety of conversations on the sift, many of them on historical, philosophical, and scientific topics. People ask me questions about nearly everything, and so I think it would be difficult to pigeonhole my comments this way. Certainly, I have witnessed the truth about Gods judgment, but this isn't my main focus. As far as fearing God goes, you're right, many do not, but their conscience is still witnessing against them.

I'll look up Mitt "white horse" Romney.

The Christians in my life that make me most sympathetic to Christianity are the ones who express their faith through actions, not words. I've only met a handful of these people in my life, but they've all made a positive impact on my life. These are the people who exude love, empathy, understanding and compassion. These are the people that say 'I love you' when you really need to hear 'I love you.' You feel it almost like an aura around them. And, in every case, I had to inquire about them to discover their faith - with none of that uncomfortable evangelizing that comes off more like used car sales pitch than deep expression of faith. And, unlike the used car sales pitch, when I did learn of their faith, I felt a genuine respect for it.

Certainly, Christians should be doing good works at every opportunity. Faith without works is dead. Scripture advises two approaches to reach people. It says some save with mercy, and others with fear. Some people are so hardhearted that the only way to pierce their armor is to make them realize that they will have to answer for their secret sins, the ones that people hide behind their masks of public purity. To let them know that they didn't actually get away with it, whatever it may be. That's kind of why it kind of amuses me when I hear someone say something like "If I saw God I would tell Him off", as if God doesn't have them dead to rights on a list of sins 5 miles long.

Others are like a fragile flower, which must be handled very carefully and gently. Ones who have been abused by the church, for instance. It is truly sad how common this actually is. Of course there are many situations inbetween these two approaches, but in general, it is some combination of the two, leaning towards one of them.

I appreciate what you're saying about your friends. Perhaps this is the way the Holy Spirit has called them to deal with you. They are most certainly praying for your salvation. Again, it depends on the situation. It depends on the kind of relationship, and how much time you have to invest in someone. It is usually expedient to share the gospel in most cases.

Ultimately, it is out of our hands. I can't save anyone; only the power of God can change someones heart. When someone is saved, it is a true miracle.

Of course you can't choose what you believe; what you believe chooses you, so none of these people have brought me any closer to God. But that's OK, because they've done something much more important, they've brought me closer to my fellow humans. They've shown me the power of empathy (not that I'm always the most empathetic person - I've a ways to go in that category) and how contagious just being a good person can really be.

You believe according to your experience, and how interested you are in what is actually true, versus what you appear to see. If you believe that you are generally right about everything, then you will never look beyond your preconceived notions. I only changed my mind about God because He showed me the spiritual reality. I could not logically believe in naturalistic materialism as being a legitimate description of reality after that.

It's wonderful that your friends have taught you something about life, especially concerning the love of God. What Jesus teaches is that every human being has intrinsic value and is worthy of respect and love. He teaches us to love unconditionally and sacrificially, disregarding our own preferences for the good of others. If you can move past all of the contentious issues that surround these topics, and look to the words of Jesus Christ, you will find a transcendent love superior to the wisdom of this world. He gives us a standard of behavior that is impossible for any human being to live up to (without His help). Jesus asks more of you than any other person, in this time or any other, ever will.

I'm not sure if this helps you, especially considering it's pretty hard to refute aggressive atheists if you don't talk a great deal about your faith. Maybe a better path would be to understand where these atheists are coming from and what you have in common. Mutual respect. I don't know.

It does help me, and I appreciate your advice. There is always a better path when there is an argument, although, there is simply no avoiding having to debate certain things, when certain misconceptions are presented as the truth about what Christianity is. Even though you may be predisposed to agree with religious criticism, you must notice the distortions that are bandied about in the atheist community about Christianity and religion in general. I hear the same ones, over and over and over again.

I mean you no offense by this comment, my religious spite phase has mostly passed. I'd like to see you have a little better time on the site and not be the subject of scorn. Many of the discussion you have with atheists seem like a waste of time for all parties, because it's just a clash of worldviews rather than an attempt to find common ground and make progress. Some of the atheists on this site can be very cruel. I don't really follow these long back and forth theological battles anymore, but if someone crosses that line and is cruel to you, I'd be happy to join in on your side. If that appeals to you, drop me a PM.

I'm glad to hear that you are no longer in the business of giving theists a hard time. There are certainly enough people working doubleshift on this that you can walk away with your head held high. Yes, I agree, common ground should be sought out as a matter of course, although it is not an exaggeration to say that convinced atheists and theists typically disagree on almost everything. It's also hard to approach this on a human level, being that this is the internet, and the medium is far inferior for interpersonal communication. It is good for certain kinds of communication, but when it comes to empathy for instance, much is lost.

In any case, I genuinely appreciate your offer. Thank you for your magnanimousness. I may take you up on it sometime. I might also ask you how you see humanity avoiding a dystopianfuturetomorrow.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Tell you what, the day a single preacher, nun or even believer gets physically assaulted by a homosexual for their beliefs, you will have something approaching a point.
http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/anger-over-prop-8-erupts-in-san-fr
ancisco/nKjWD/


protest/counter-protest
corpses: 0
blood spilled: none

http://www.wnd.com/2008/11/80220/


Inflamitory blog Posts:
corpses: 0
blood spilled: none

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4Xb-au-wpU

alleged assault
alleged corpses: 0
alleged blood spilled: none



Please contrast you "examples" of "violence" with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_violence_against_LGBT_people_in_the_United_States

Your case for "this is just more bullying" is based on an absurd argument for moral equivalence. Forceful, even offensive, speech against real physical/deadly violence, is not morally equivalent to speech advocating, or rationalizing, said violence.

The gay folks in the links, as well as Dan Savage, are not protesting/speaking against people for being Christian, but for being bigots. The use of Christianity to rationalize bigotry is the choice of bigots.

If Christians don't want Christianity to be scrutinized, they need to stop other Christians from using their religion to advocate bigotry.

If those kids were being bullied, they wouldn't have been allowed to leave the room.

When someone is being bullied for real, they don't get to "opt out"

When someone is being bullied for real, they don't have grins on their faces as these kids do.

Dan Savage's latest blog post on this subject:

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/05/01/testaments-old-and-new

tl,dr:
his last paragraph sums it up nicely (his post is about New vs Old Testaments)

Gay people are being attacked by bad people who are waving Bibles over their heads. They claim they have no choice but to persecute us because of what it says in the Bible. We have a right to crack open that same Bible and ask... what about the rest then?

And where I'm from "pointing out" a failure of reason — and humanity — is known as "calling bullshit."

Was this a convention or lecture about the validity of religion or Christianity? Was it a lecture about how religion has impeded the gay rights movement? The title indicates it's a JOURNALISM convention which means that anyone launching into an anti-religious agenda is already in a questionable position. Bully or Hero or Awesome are merely labels people will apply based on their personal beliefs on the topic of religion/homosexuality.

Please note that he does not restrict his criticism of religion to homosexuality, so even making an argument that it is relevant because of his personal life or the topic of religion/sexuality/journalism isn't completely kosher. It is very apparent that he is not criticizing the stance on homosexuality by Christians but their faith out right.

In a convention full of HS students, he calls a book and religion bullshit, would you all have said it wasn't bullying if he said that Islam and Muslims were bullshit? What about anything else people strongly believe believe which are social/cultural choices? What if he was saying that people who think women should not be beaten are bullshit and some battered women walked out...is that bullying?

In my eyes he abused his moment to speak about topics that all attendees volunteered for to push a personal agenda and he did it in a confrontational and heavy handed manner. Students who did not come to get a bible lesson from someone in a journalism convention walked out, shame on them right? Regardless of whether you agree with him or not, you just sound ignorant if you say that what he said is completely understandable/respectable given the audience and context.

"It is very apparent that he is not criticizing the stance on homosexuality by Christians but their faith out right."

No. It is not apparent, @dirkdeagler7.

Ginger Ginger Ginger.

>> ^bareboards2:

"It is very apparent that he is not criticizing the stance on homosexuality by Christians but their faith out right."
No. It is not apparent, @dirkdeagler7.
Ginger Ginger Ginger.


Someone above already mentioned that slavery as it was understood and talked about in the bible was not the same as the slavery he is implicating. Did he broach the topic in an unbiased way or in a way that supported his already established argument about it being bullshit?

Also explain to me how stoning, slavery, or virginity before marriage have ANYTHING to do with journalism or gay rights? Unless of course you're using them to attack the validity and stances of Christianity. I would argue his use of the word bullshit and his attitude towards those who walked out that day are evidence of his stance on the faith itself. He clarified in his statement after about "the behavior and not the person" aspect however such clarifications are difficult to interpret as far as sincerity and the intent he had the day of the speech.

Also, if you the type of person that can only read the lines being spoken and can't understand the context, tone, attitude, and reaction of someone to help you to understand what they're communicating...then it's no surprise to me that you disagreed with my assessment of the situation. However it does nothing to give me confidence in your opinion of the situation as you saw it either.

Oh, I understand everything. I just choose to not argue with someone who can't think clearly, @dirkdeagler7

Bullshit. Bible. One paragraph. Equals snit fit.

Ignore all the words inbetween.

You talk about context but don't apply your own logic.

>> ^bareboards2:

Oh, I understand everything. I just choose to not argue with someone who can't think clearly, @dirkdeagler7
Bullshit. Bible. One paragraph. Equals snit fit.
Ignore all the words inbetween.
You talk about context but don't apply your own logic.


Perhaps if I said he was criticizing their faith in addition to their stance on homosexuality you would disagree less?

I'm the one not thinking clearly? You've ONLY given your own opinion of MY assessment and have not used a single argument or comment to refute anything I've said or to give your own opinion with regards to the things I touched on. Since you're apparently far more enlightened than I am, please explain to me what was the ultimate point of this 3min. commentary (keeping in mind that the beginning and end of the video clearly indicate it was a small piece of some larger lecture he is giving).

I'm not in the mood to be trolled by someone that criticizes my clarity of thought or my understanding of context and logic yet uses none himself.

To be clear I've only commented on the context and seeming POINT of what he was saying and how he said it. I did not go into whether I agree or disagree with him did I? But since you're obviously trying to imply I'm an unreasonable Bible-thumper let me declare my religious stance just for you.

I am a non-practicing christian with a very loose tie to organized Christianity. I do not believe the bible is direct truth and I probably know more about cosmology, the big bang, and science than even most science enthusiasts because I love and respect science and knowledge. I'm not an opponent of gay rights or gay marriage and I believe that sexual preference is no business of anyone but ones self.

I personally would not have walked out that day. I also would have lost respect for someone who takes a benign opportunity to discuss a topic with other enthusiasts (journalism) to parade his/her own personal opinion in a forum that was not intended for this purpose.

It was a journalism conference on bullying.

The bible is used to justify bullying gays.

This SNIPPET out of CONTEXT addresses that portion of his longer talk.

That, my friend, is context.

He only called out the hypocrisy of quoting the pieces of the bible while ignoring others when you want to justify hating on the gays.

It is tiring as all get out to STATE THE OBVIOUS over and over again.

Now I am done with you.

@dirkeagler7

>> ^bareboards2:

It was a journalism conference on bullying.
The bible is used to justify bullying gays.
This SNIPPET out of CONTEXT addresses that portion of his longer talk.
That, my friend, is context.
He only called out the hypocrisy of quoting the pieces of the bible while ignoring others when you want to justify hating on the gays.
It is tiring as all get out to STATE THE OBVIOUS over and over again.
Now I am done with you.
@dirkeagler7


Sigh I thought I was done as well. Although his commentary on the misuse of the bible by some to justify bigotry and hate and how damaging that can be to gays and Christians alike DOES have merit...you're using context to justify someone stepping out of line with his methodology in said context.

When the organizers denounce it and he in a way apologizes for it, how can you still maintain that he was justified in the timing and manner of which he broached the subject.

If his main point in this 3min segment was to show that using the Bible in a direct way to justify ones behavior has proven to be erroneous or unreasonable, he could easily have done so in a way that didn't belittle the topic at hand. A simple "as we have seen people have attempted to use the bible to justify slavery, stoning, and other concepts that society has now dismissed, who is to say that its stance on homosexuality should also be revisited. blah blah"

Instead he opened with "the Bible is bullshit" and yet you staunchly support his method and criticize anyone who thinks that this guy went a bit over the top. You my friend are exhibiting similar behaviors to the religious nuts you seem to want to criticize so readily...and that is MY opinion.

Bible. Bullshit. Same paragraph.

Snit fricking fracking fit.

He used profanity. He didn't phrase his argument in a way in which you wanted him to phrase it.

So what? The guy cusses. He used shorthand to make his point. I understood him perfectly.

You want context? Read anything he has ever written. Watch more than two minutes of any video. The guy has a potty mouth.

And?

The question becomes why can't you hear the LOGIC of his statements? Well, no question really. This is why I have chosen not to engage in any protracted argument about this. YOU AREN'T LISTENING TO HIM. There is no point in arguing when you never heard him to start with.

You heard Bullshit blah blah Bible. Ginger Ginger Ginger, my man.

If you don't know what I mean by that, read my little anecdote above about Gary Larson.

I will grant you that there are some people who can rightly claim that he attacked their faith.

They are the persons out there who stone women for not being virgins on their wedding nights, who don't mix fibers, who refuse to eat shellfish or pork.

They exist.

Super Orthodox Hassidic Jews. Extremely conservative Muslims. A tiny tiny subset of Christians.

But I guarantee you, no Christians in that room. Any Christian who follows EVERY SINGLE WORD of the Bible does not send their children to school. They lock them up and home-school them.

Anyone else who claims that Dan Savage is attacking the Christian faith of anyone in that room is as incapable of reasoning thought as Ginger Ginger Ginger.

Damn. And here I am arguing anyway. Damn it.

@dirkdeagler7. Now I am REALLY done.

>> ^bareboards2:

Bible. Bullshit. Same paragraph.
Snit fricking fracking fit.
He used profanity. He didn't phrase his argument in a way in which you wanted him to phrase it.
So what? The guy cusses. He used shorthand to make his point. I understood him perfectly.
You want context? Read anything he has ever written. Watch more than two minutes of any video. The guy has a potty mouth.
And?
The question becomes why can't you hear the LOGIC of his statements? Well, no question really. This is why I have chosen not to engage in any protracted argument about this. YOU AREN'T LISTENING TO HIM. There is no point in arguing when you never heard him to start with.
You heard Bullshit blah blah Bible. Ginger Ginger Ginger, my man.
If you don't know what I mean by that, read my little anecdote above about Gary Larson.
I will grant you that there are some people who can rightly claim that he attacked their faith.
They are the persons out there who stone women for not being virgins on their wedding nights, who don't mix fibers, who refuse to eat shellfish or pork.
They exist.
Super Orthodox Hassidic Jews. Extremely conservative Muslims. A tiny tiny subset of Christians.
But I guarantee you, no Christians in that room. Any Christian who follows EVERY SINGLE WORD of the Bible does not send their children to school. They lock them up and home-school them.
Anyone else who claims that Dan Savage is attacking the Christian faith of anyone in that room is as incapable of reasoning thought as Ginger Ginger Ginger.
Damn. And here I am arguing anyway. Damn it.
@dirkdeagler7. Now I am REALLY done.


TLDR: I actually agree with his overall sentiment so you are OUTRIGHT wrong in saying I did not listen to him, you in fact do not listen to other people it seems.

Now you really do sound like the people you are criticizing. You say I dont listen yet you ignored the fact that i said, in so many words, that I agree with his overall message in this segment (as I said I'm not against the gay lifestyle, rights, or marriage. I also said sexual preference is no one elses business which means I disagree with bullying or ostracizing homosexuals). I never criticized the LOGIC in his statements merely the manner in which he gave them and the context (this goes beyond his lecture topic and includes the fact that these are HS students at a lecture about bullying).

Not only did you not listen and create an argument that is apparently at someone else other than me (i actually had to double take to make sure this was directed at me...full honesty), but you go on to drop these gems:

"But I guarantee you, no Christians in that room. Any Christian who follows EVERY SINGLE WORD of the Bible does not send their children to school. They lock them up and home-school them."

"Anyone else who claims that Dan Savage is attacking the Christian faith of anyone in that room is as incapable of reasoning thought as Ginger Ginger Ginger."

At this point Im actually feeling badly for picking on you and stupid for arguing with you. It's apparent that your argument and stance are not processing anything anyone has said in this comment thread...it shouldn't be a surprise now that I realize you posted the vid to begin with.

So here you are: disregarding fact (the apologies by him and the organizers), dismissing and attacking any opinion that is counter to your own, twisting and misinterpreting (or just not listening) to what I'm saying and then disagreeing with me and using laughable attempts to belittle me and my thought process, and using wide based and unfounded arguments/beliefs (ie my quotes above) to prove your point

You sound just like the people you seem to hate on, just on the other side of the coin and you sit on your high horse unable to see this very basic possibility...that you might be wrong in this matter.

From barebond's quote from Dan's post:

All Christians read the Bible selectively. Some read it hypocritically—and the hypocrites react very angrily when anyone has the nerve to point that out.

This. Pretty much. No need to argue more.

^
I agree. Thanks.

christian. anti theist/atheist. liberal. conservative. republican. democrat. gay. straight. lets just fucking stop arbitrarily labeling each other with such trivial terms just so we can have something to point our fingers at and say "see? THATS the bad guy"



oh who am i kidding. if we didnt have these dipshit labels for everyone we'd have nothing to fight about so label away!

From a writer at the Stranger, who works for editor Dan Savage

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/05/02/the-sermon-on-the-mount

Ah, that old "the Old Testament isn't Christian" trope that Dan is now being forced to push back against. I get it all the time in my weekly Slog Bible Study threads whenever I quote from the Old rather than the New. Well, to settle this thorny and persistent issue once and for all, let's go straight to the source, perhaps the most Jesusy scripture of them all, the Sermon on the Mount:

“Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not even the smallest detail of God’s law will disappear until its purpose is achieved. So if you ignore the least commandment and teach others to do the same, you will be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But anyone who obeys God’s laws and teaches them will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.

“But I warn you—unless your righteousness is better than the righteousness of the teachers of religious law and the Pharisees, you will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven!

Those "laws of Moses" Jesus says he's come to accomplish not abolish? They're laid down in the Old Testament—mostly in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy—which by the way, explains their inclusion in the Christian Bible. That the laws and commandments of Leviticus are not broadly repeated in the Gospel of Mark or the Epistles of Paul should be no more surprising than the fact that they're not repeated in Kings or in Psalms. It would be redundant. They're all part of the same book.

I'd argue that those Christians who do not understand that the Old Testament has always been a fundamental part of Christian scripture, do not understand the doctrinal underpinning of their own religion. Indeed, there is more disagreement between various Christian denominations over which texts should properly be included in the New Testament than there is over which texts should be included in the Old.

And by the way, the "Old Testament" is not the Jewish Bible. We've got the Torah, the five books of Moses, as our holiest of texts. The Nevi'im and Ketuvim, in which the other books are compiled, are also taught and studied, but are separate texts.

One final observation. It does strike me that there is something vaguely anti-Semitic about this effort by some Christians to downplay the significance of the Old Testament within the Christian Bible, as if the Jewishness of it taints their religion. Well too fucking bad. Your religion is, at its core, a Jewish sect. Deal with it.

6 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.