theblaze.com- anti-bullying crusader attacks bible and curses christian teens

[grego]

He seems a mild mannered fellow :pfft:

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/obamas-defacto-anti-bullying-czar-i-wish-republicans-were-all-fcking-dead/

"Bullying is wrong. Except when you’re bullying the right people. Republicans and Christians, for example. Then it’s all fun and games.

Which just goes to show that anti-bullying activism, and these pro-civility campaigns, aren’t so much about bullying and civility as about silencing those the activists disagree with".

ya this is kinda how i feel about savage. right cause, but he's going about it horribly. name calling and wishing those who disagree with 'some' of your points dead is counter productive, if not blatantly hypocritical.

its wrong when westboro baptist church says horrible things. and its wrong when dan savage say horrible things. no need to pick and justify among these nutjobs.

[Special K]

Wow, that was completely inappropriate for that forum.

I understand his passion and I support gay rights as well, but I think there is a much better way to get your point across without offending others.

And that was completely unacceptable for him to mock kids who walked out of his speech because they were offended. Calling them "pansy asses" from his platform on the stage is the epitomy of bullying. He definitely let his passion and frustration take over which led to a very bad judgement call on his part.

I would have been upset if I were one of the parents of the kids who walked out and my child was called a pansy ass and mocked by an adult. Definitely.

[Corcaigh]

I say you have the right to disagree with my morality.

But you seek to discriminate against others based on your morality, and in a highly selective way only against certain 'sins'.

Adultery, greed, divorce and other sins aren't anything like as important to mainstream Christians as homosexuality.

[Stadium-Armory]

All human beings ARE created equal before God, but it is our actions which separate us...your problem is that you refuse to acknowledge the fact that even you understand this to be true. Just think for a moment (and I am in no way trying to equate homosexuality here just using an extreme example to illustrate a point, so try to keep the knee jerk to a minimum) how we as an American society discriminate and stand prejudicial against murderers, rapists and pedophiles.

I base my morality upon a faith that is more than 8,000 years old.

You base yours off secular humanistic ideals which are less than 200 years old.

I say you have the right to disagree with my morality.

You call me a terrorist when I disagree with yours.

Murderers, rapists, and pedophiles deprive others of their individual liberty. The dots on this analogy do not connect, even with a flexible view.

I didn't call you a terrorist, I equated organizing society around religion to what the Taliban did in Afghanistan. Because that's what they did. And in Saudi Arabia, and in Iran.

I think a good litmus test would be to ask your self: if faced with a choice between the law and ones religion, which would you chose? The abortion clinic bombers come mind in this example (and I am in not calling you an abortion clinic bomber, you seem like a really nice, reasonable person).

[aamiha73]

So I as a Christian am no longer bound to have only one god? What about stealing and murder? What about adultery?

You are presenting a divide between Judaism and Christianity that simply does not exist.

If you would have said to the 1st century Christians that the law was given to the Jews and not to the Christians they would have looked at you and asked you what the difference was, because all the Christians then WERE Jews.

Jesus did not abolish the Law...He fulfilled it. To read fulfillment as abolition is to simply not understand the difference between two totally different words.

When there is a forum where an actual discussion is being held them I would agree very much, but the speaker was not having a discussion at all.

I’m saying a Christian is under the law of Christ, not Old Testament law. I wasn’t trying to give the impression that Old Testament law is irrelevant. It is just not applicable to a Christian, because as you said, Jesus fulfilled it. So I’m not bound by it. But, I am bound by the Law of Christ which is to “love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind…and to love your neighbor as yourself.” Love God, love your neighbors. Loving God is to obey his commands. In doing this we are upholding what God requires. So yes, as a Christian you are bound to have only one God, not steal, murder or commit adultery because obeying these fulfill the Law of Christ.

I’m not sure how I presented a divide. I was speaking in terms of Leviticus as instructions for holy loving for ancient Israel. I wasn’t talking about the early Christian church. My post was sort of in reply to the post prior to mine. Maybe I should have quoted it.

As for the last bit, oh yeah, I know it wasn't an open forum but I think the believers who got up and left may have missed an opportunity for convos with the other kids around them immediately following the presentation. I think the environment would have been ripe for quality discussion. By leaving, perhaps marking themself as an offended Christian, they may have missed an opportunity to really connect.That's all I meant.

[AsburySkinsFan]

But you seek to discriminate against others based on your morality, and in a highly selective way only against certain 'sins'.

Adultery, greed, divorce and other sins aren't anything like as important to mainstream Christians as homosexuality.

In the clergy they most certainly are, you show me a self professing practicing adulterer, money hungry, and serial monogamous clergy member and I'll show you someone who is not actively serving a church in a pastoral capacity.

Now, is it true that many conservatives inflate homosexuality and abortion to be sins above all others, yes it is true that while they say all sin are equal before God that they do then promote some above others...but in doing so they make a mistake in understanding that all sinful actions are the symptoms of the sinful nature which exists in each person, as such the stuffy nose is just as telling as the fever or the chest congestion because they all point to the root cause. In the church we must look for those who have consistently shown that their walk is straight along the way of discipleship of Jesus, and in so doing we discriminate on the basis of actions from those who have not shown the same walk. However, that does not mean that the opportunities for the latter are permanently withheld because their consistency has not yet been established.

[Stadium-Armory]

deleted post.

[Predicto]

He seems a mild mannered fellow :pfft:

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/obamas-defacto-anti-bullying-czar-i-wish-republicans-were-all-fcking-dead/

"Obama's defacto bullying czar" What nonsense

[twa]

But you seek to discriminate against others based on your morality, and in a highly selective way only against certain 'sins'.

Adultery, greed, divorce and other sins aren't anything like as important to mainstream Christians as homosexuality.

I have found the opposite to be true...but perhaps you overlook the issue of continuing in sin and the obligation of forgiveness upon repentence?

In fact those more tolerant of those sins seem more tolerant of homosexuality as well....are those the mainstream?

Strange that I spent decades listening to sins being condemned and seeing church discipline administered and missed that emphasis you see so clearly.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Murderers, rapists, and pedophiles deprive others of their individual liberty. The dots on this analogy do not connect, even with a flexible view.

Sure they do. They just don't connect in your morality, because "sin" in your morality is defined as that which "deprives other of their individual liberty". As a Christian my morality is defined by what I affirm is the revelation of God in the scriptures.

I didn't call you a terrorist, I equated organizing society around religion to what the Taliban did in Afghanistan. Because that's what they did. And in Saudi Arabia, and in Iran.

Come on, surely you understand how inflammatory listing those groups must be, especially considering that fewer nations in the world's history have detached the church from the state than those that have combined them. So surely we can find some less inflammatory examples, like say England and its national church the Church of England.

I think a good litmus test would be to ask your self: if faced with a choice between the law and ones religion, which would you chose?

God's will supersedes human law every day of the week. This is one area where Christianity differs from Mormonism which affirms that the state is to be obeyed. Christians throughout the history of our faith have constantly found ourselves in opposition with the state.

The abortion clinic bombers come mind in this example (and I am in not calling you an abortion clinic bomber, you seem like a really nice, reasonable person).

Ahhh but you're asking me to choose between the sin of abortion or the sin of blowing up and abortion clinic.

A much better example would be if the state tried to force the church to hire a serial adulterer as a youth pastor. I'd easily stand in opposition to the state. Which is why I am also a conscientious objector who would not even be forced to work a a civil servant in the war effort.

[twa]

"Obama's defacto bullying czar" What nonsense

Is this untrue?

Like many other school districts and organizations on the local level, the Obama administration has been taking on the issue of bullying. In doing so, officials have relied heavily on — and have promoted — Savage’s “It Gets Better” project. In fact, the relations between the Obama administration and the group are so tight that key government officials have even created videos for the campaign.

President Obama himself made a video for Savage’s campaign. While President Obama and the Obama administration have made a big stink about “tolerance” and “civility,” here’s Savage on Bill Maher’s show wishing Republicans were dead:

Play in the mud and ya get dirty

[Corcaigh]

In the clergy they most certainly are, you show me a self professing practicing adulterer, money hungry, and serial monogamous clergy member and I'll show you someone who is not actively serving a church in a pastoral capacity.

Now, is it true that many conservatives inflate homosexuality and abortion to be sins above all others, yes it is true that while they say all sin are equal before God that they do then promote some above others...but in doing so they make a mistake in understanding that all sinful actions are the symptoms of the sinful nature which exists in each person, as such the stuffy nose is just as telling as the fever or the chest congestion because they all point to the root cause. In the church we must look for those who have consistently shown that their walk is straight along the way of discipleship of Jesus, and in so doing we discriminate on the basis of actions from those who have not shown the same walk. However, that does not mean that the opportunities for the latter are permanently withheld because their consistency has not yet been established.

Not even close as a justification of the reprehensible behavior of many mainstream Protestant churches.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I’m saying a Christian is under the law of Christ, not Old Testament law. I wasn’t trying to give the impression that Old Testament law is irrelevant. It is just not applicable to a Christian, because as you said, Jesus fulfilled it. So I’m not bound by it. But, I am bound by the Law of Christ which is to “love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind…and to love your neighbor as yourself.” Love God, love your neighbors. Loving God is to obey his commands. In doing this we are upholding what God requires. So yes, as a Christian you are bound to have only one God, not steal, murder or commit adultery because obeying these fulfill the Law of Christ.

The only problem is that Jesus, Paul and Peter all affirm that the summary of the Torah is to love God with all your being, and to love your neighbor as yourself. What are no more are the Levitical (priestly) laws, circumcision of gentiles, food laws etc.

I’m not sure how I presented a divide. I was speaking in terms of Leviticus as instructions for holy loving for ancient Israel. I wasn’t talking about the early Christian church. My post was sort of in reply to the post prior to mine. Maybe I should have quoted it.

Maybe it was the clear cut between the Torah and the Christian life, because it is abundantly clear that the moral law established in the OT is still absolutely in effect for Christians.

As for the last bit, oh yeah, I know it wasn't an open forum but I think the believers who got up and left may have missed an opportunity for convos with the other kids around them immediately following the presentation. I think the environment would have been ripe for quality discussion. By leaving, perhaps marking themself as an offended Christian, they may have missed an opportunity to really connect.That's all I meant.

Some times you just kick the dust off your feet, and after reading what the speaker has written about previously then IMO they were right to kick the dust off their feet.

---------- Post added April-30th-2012 at 11:29 PM ----------

Not even close as a justification of the reprehensible behavior of many mainstream Protestant churches.

Wow, I hope you don't think I am trying to justify hatred against homosexuals. I was only illustrating that what you say are not as you suggested "less important".

[PF Chang]

I base my morality upon a faith that is more than 8,000 years old.

You base yours off secular humanistic ideals which are less than 200 years old.

What? Could you expand on this? Seems to me he would have all of recorded human history from which to evaluate and draw his morality.

[Enter Apotheosis]

I base my morality upon a faith that is more than 8,000 years old.

Citation needed.

[Jumbo]

Any suggestion that many of the fundamental aspects of what may be called "human secularism" or more properly, "secularism" or "humanism", are only 200 years old is misleading. Now those terms, and certain people who organized specific and detailed constructs around them, being of that approx. 200 yr age (though building on various philosophies and core concepts from hundreds and even thousands of years earlier), is ok.

But it really doesn't matter how old one (secular premises) or the other (Christianity) is in terms of inherent worth. The institution of slavery has been around a long time, and is still with us, while "freedom/equality for all" on a wide geo-cultural scale is relatively new (and quite unrealized, of course).

But one matter that is important to be accurate about, is that the fundamental human behaviors and traits that we discuss in this forum, and their base individually and socially assigned values of "good" and "bad" in various degrees, were existent before any organized religion, and even pre-date older regional myths that never made it to the full "traditional" religion status.

Some folks have a great deal invested in putting that particular cart before the horse when they are allowed.

The most ancient forms of storytelling (well prior, of course, to Greek and Roman mythology for instance, even in that region, let alone Christianity) were inevitably built around our cognitive development, observable behaviors, and experiencing/internalizing/interpreting everything else around us we could perceive (big duh). This includes, at times, any influences from other stories from other peoples/places.

One can list a number of well-regarded traits and say they are "Christian (or Islamic or Buddhist or Judaism) values" and be speaking relative truth. But the common implication often "added" that those terms are somehow "owned" by that faith, or were "created" by or inherently linked in a more exclusive fashion to that faith (and belief in it), as opposed to just (hopefully if not consistently) associated to or "demanded" by that faith, is fatuous.

People had all those thoughts/feelings/behaviors of being: scared, brave, loving, hateful, honest, dishonest, noble, base, loyal, traitorous, giving, taking, lazy, hard-working etc. etc., prior to any major religion. They even had them before the increasing nuances and complexities of such resulting from developing higher-linguistic capabilities and that process's reciprocal loop of both enhancing our experiential interpretations/perception and the ability to then describe them more thoroughly---creating ever more richly themed and complex stories or expanding the level of reporting various internal and external events, to varying degrees of objective accuracy and truthfulness .

I could go on, too, about the proposed evolution of major regional myths and major world religions (to the extent such evolution is possible in a fairly closed system) and their reflecting the overall social evolution (sophistication/complexity) of their perspective eras, but I'm past the degree that this is relevant to the topic, or to me at this moment. :pfft:

[AsburySkinsFan]

Citation needed.

New Testament + Old Testament

---------- Post added May-1st-2012 at 07:22 AM ----------

What? Could you expand on this? Seems to me he would have all of recorded human history from which to evaluate and draw his morality.

Secular Humanism is a product of the Enlightenment, it is a young pup.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Any suggestion that many of the fundamental aspects of what may be called "human secularism" or more properly, "secularism" or "humanism", are only 200 years old is misleading. Now those terms, and certain people who organized specific and detailed constructs around them, being of that approx. 200 yr age (though building on various philosophies and core concepts from hundreds and even thousands of years earlier), is ok.

Instead of "building on" I think you mean plundering the philosophies and core concepts from before.

But it really doesn't matter how old one (secular premises) or the other (Christianity) is in terms of inherent worth. The institution of slavery has been around a long time, and is still with us, while "freedom/equality for all" on a wide geo-cultural scale is relatively new (and quite unrealized, of course).

Sure age isn't the only standard, but there is something to be said for that which does stand the test of time compared to the weeds which grow today and are gone tomorrow.

But one matter that is important to be accurate about, is that the fundamental human behaviors and traits that we discuss in this forum, and their base individually and socially assigned values of "good" and "bad" in various degrees, were existent before any organized religion, and even pre-date older regional myths that never made it to the full "traditional" religion status.

See you make an important qualifier "organized religion" and by that you start looking for basically the Moses event, but we trace the line back further than that. You call it myth, and if that's what makes you feel better about dismissing my faith then so be it, I'm a big boy and sticks and stones may hurt me but names never will.

Some folks have a great deal invested in putting that particular cart before the horse when they are allowed.

Some folks understand that our faith extends back further than Moses or circumcision, others don't get that or dismiss it.

The most ancient forms of storytelling (well prior, of course, to Greek and Roman mythology for instance, even in that region, let alone Christianity) were inevitably built around our cognitive development, observable behaviors, and experiencing/internalizing/interpreting everything else around us we could perceive (big duh). This includes, at times, any influences from other stories from other peoples/places.

Again, if you refuse to accept that there is even a possibility of a God then it is no wonder your view wouldn't contain even a hint that morality came from God. Instead it is just people figuring stuff out...except that people have shown repeatedly throughout history that morality is the last thing they are interested in.

One can list a number of well-regarded traits and say they are "Christian (or Islamic or Buddhist or Judaism) values" and be speaking relative truth. But the common implication often "added" that those terms are somehow "owned" by that faith, or were "created" by or inherently linked in a more exclusive fashion to that faith (and belief in it), as opposed to just (hopefully if not consistently) associated to or "demanded" by that faith, is fatuous.

Just saying something is goofy or silly doesn't make it so. We don't own morality, morality is defined by God, if that is silly to you then imagine what we think looking at the secular humanists mucking about.

People had all those thoughts/feelings/behaviors of being: scared, brave, loving, hateful, honest, dishonest, noble, base, loyal, traitorous, giving, taking, lazy, hard-working etc. etc., prior to any major religion.

And yet that isn't morality....also...yet another important qualifier, nice job trying to frame the debate to a certain time line.

They even had them before the increasing nuances and complexities of such resulting from developing higher-linguistic capabilities and that process's reciprocal loop of both enhancing our experiential interpretations/perception and the ability to then describe them more thoroughly---creating ever more richly themed and complex stories or expanding the level of reporting various internal and external events, to varying degrees of objective accuracy and truthfulness .

This is exactly what I'd expect from someone who refuses to consider that there might be information and a greater reality which he doesn't know.

I could go on, too, about the proposed evolution of major regional myths and major world religions (to the extent such evolution is possible in a fairly closed system) and their reflecting the overall social evolution (sophistication/complexity) of their perspective eras, but I'm past the degree that this is relevant to the topic, or to me at this moment. :pfft:

Secular Humanists are really just selective opportunists stealing from what came before them and refusing to see why those things lasted for as long as they did before the SHers came along, a lot like teenagers who refuse to understand all the hard work that was done before they came along and as such just think its always been this way so there is no reason to honor that which came before so instead they kick dirt in the faces of their grandfathers who only hope one day that they'll grow up.

[Corcaigh]

Really?

That's the level of understanding and knowledge you get from a Masters in Divinity. They owe you a refund.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Really?

That's the level of understanding and knowledge you get from a Masters in Divinity. They owe you a refund.

That's the level of reply I'm willing to give when I hear from secular humanists that my faith is mythology. If a serious discussion is to be had then so be it...just please point it out when it gets here.

[PF Chang]

The problem with basing your morality on one book is easy to see. If every human alive based their morality on the Bible, we'd all follow everything the Bible suggests, as there would be no driving force or reason to change anything. So it sounds to me like we'd still have slavery, still be treating women like second-class citizens, etc. It takes disagreement to foster change.

I get my morality from a variety of factors, including history. I can't speak for the people who decided Biblical morality wasn't for them, but I am glad they did. In my opinion the world would be a much worse place today if everybody alive got their morality from one rigid source and were not allowed to use reason, the true gift of any theoretical gods.

[AsburySkinsFan]

The problem with basing your morality on one book is easy to see. If every human alive based their morality on the Bible, we'd all follow everything the Bible suggests, as there would be no driving force or reason to change anything.

Which is exactly right, morality doesn't change.

So it sounds to me like we'd still have slavery, still be treating women like second-class citizens, etc.

This is a mischaracterization of what the Bible teaches, and it just the same one that the speaker in the OP used, and it is just as wrong.

It takes disagreement to foster change.

I can agree with this...only problem is that it is God putting the world to rights that brings the disagreement from those who do not want to hear the morality of God.

I get my morality from a variety of factors, including history. I can't speak for the people who decided Biblical morality wasn't for them, but I am glad they did. In my opinion the world would be a much worse place today if everybody alive got their morality from one rigid source and were not allowed to use reason, the true gift of any theoretical gods.

Saying Christians aren't allowed to use reason, is an absurdity. As a Christian my theological method includes scripture, tradition, experience and reason...this is how we begin to understand God. But we don't for a moment deny that God is the "one rigid source" of morality in the world.

[ABQCOWBOY]

As has been mentioned, the speaker was a well known activist on the subject with definite strong opinions on gay rights. I have no real issue with this kind of speech. I don't think he should ridicule those who walked out, and lets be honest, that's exactly what he did. I don't think he should have made this political and lets be honest, that's exactly what he did, but outside of that, I don't have a problem with the message other then the fact that it doesn't represent the entire truth of the matter. It's OK if you don't agree with a religious stance. That's certainly the right of every American. However, what is this school doing bringing this speaker in? If you didn't know his religious or political leanings and you didn't know what kind of speaker he was, then that is the fault of the school because he is well known in this arena. He should never have been brought in to make that speech to High School Students. It is not the right of the school to subject ANYBODIES children to these kinds of messages. It has nothing to do with the content, per say. It has everything to do with the speaker and how he brings the message IMO.

[AsburySkinsFan]

As has been mentioned, the speaker was a well known activist on the subject with definite strong opinions on gay rights. I have no real issue with this kind of speech. I don't think he should ridicule those who walked out, and lets be honest, that's exactly what he did. I don't think he should have made this political and lets be honest, that's exactly what he did, but outside of that, I don't have a problem with the message other then the fact that it doesn't represent the entire truth of the matter. It's OK if you don't agree with a religious stance. That's certainly the right of every American. However, what is this school doing bringing this speaker in? If you didn't know his religious or political leanings and you didn't know what kind of speaker he was, then that is the fault of the school because he is well known in this arena. He should never have been brought in to make that speech to High School Students. It is not the right of the school to subject ANYBODY'S children to these kinds of messages. It has nothing to do with the content, per say. It has everything to do with the speaker and how he brings the message IMO.

Couldn't agree more, not to mention who paid for him to be there, was it public funds? I don't believe that people have to agree with everything a speaker says, but to attack Christianity the way that he did in that forum was totally out of bounds. Now, if he wanted to go after Fundamentalism, then I'd be more open to that, but even still it is just hypocritical to say you're against bullying and then turn around to be the bully.

"Every faction in Africa calls themselves by these noble names - Liberation this, Patriotic that, Democratic Republic of something-or-other... I guess they can't own up to what they usually are: the Federation of Worse Oppressors Than the Last Bunch of Oppressors. Often, the most barbaric atrocities occur when both combatants proclaim themselves Freedom Fighters."

~Yuri Orlov (Lord of War)

[Thiebear]

Being an Atheist i strongly believe the 10 commandments and quite a few of the doctrines of Christianity are needed for us to play well with others.

I just get upset when mankind decides to divvy it up and try and own such a good idea, thus reducing it to losers had to put their clay jars in a cave.