• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Anti-Bullying Speaker Curses Christian Teens[W:165; 667]

There is no POV. The sun is either up or the sun is down. Intolerance is anti-Christian and anti-American and NO AMERICAN should tolerate it. If that means shaming so-called "christians" into complying with real Christian values, then so be it.

If you're homophobic or racists, try to no be so thin-skinned when we call you out and expose you for who you are.

BTW - look up the word "bigoted" in a dictionary.

No Heterosexual or Homosexual should have to tolerate homophobia and bigotry. Period. There is no POV.

I think you have some tunnel vision on this issue, so it's probably going to be difficult discussing your points.

You say intolerance is anti-Christian, yet there there numerous sins that Christians don't tolerate. Do you think to be Christian you should tolerate all sin and ignore the verses in the Bible that directly condemn sin?

What is a Christian to do? Should the Christian fully follow the Word of God, or should that Christian forsake the Bible to follow the rules set forth by secular and worldly man? Why should a Christian forsake God to follow secular laws, and in the process, damn his soul to Hell? Perhaps the path of Godly righteousness supersedes what the carnal world dictates.

The point I'm making in this thread is that you, me, Christians, and non-Christians should have the tact and common decency to understand each-other; if it's really so offensive you have the right to civilly leave. That is a far better choice than to get confrontational or violent.

I think you'll find their comments spineless, toothless, and otherwise harmless. (for the most part)

While that's probably true that doesn't just apply to the right/far-right, but the left and far-left as well.
 
Last edited:
I think you'll find their comments spineless, toothless, and otherwise harmless. (for the most part)


This from someone hiding behind a computer screen, bullying kids. If you want to see someone who ius "spineless, toothless," look in the mirror. You know, I know, and everyone on the thread knows you'd never, ever say "man up" to and adult male. :mrgreen: All hat and no cattle.
 
You know, I know, and everyone on the thread knows you'd never, ever say "man up" to and adult homosexual male.

Methinks this will show the err in his point of view.
 
There is no POV. The sun is either up or the sun is down. Intolerance is anti-Christian and anti-American and NO AMERICAN should tolerate it.

Tolerate evil in the bible? haha. Too much of that "universal church" stuff rots your brain.

If that means shaming so-called "christians" into complying with real Christian values, then so be it.

If you're homophobic or racists, try to no be so thin-skinned when we call you out and expose you for who you are.

I guess

BTW - look up the word "bigoted" in a dictionary.

It means intolerant of other people's opinions. A zealot, a fanatic. It doesn't specify the subject, you can be a Global Warming fanatic and technically be a bigot.

No Heterosexual or Homosexual should have to tolerate homophobia and bigotry. Period. There is no POV.

I don't want to hear the sexcapades of heterosexuals, and I certainly don't want to hear the sexcapades of a homosexual. I'm quite intolerant of listening to people's sexcapades. Maybe people should keep that stuff to themselves, it's rude like chewing with your mouth open.
 
The only thing I could decipher was the last line, and as I pointed out already, both sides used the Bible to justify their positions, the pro slavery Southerners used direct quotes, the Abolitionists had to use interpretations of verse since there is no outright condemning of slavery in the Bible.
That was my point. Both sides used the book to justify their positions.
Um, I think I made that point before you did.

-The speaker did not acknowledge the presence of the other side, only stating that the Book got slavery wrong and trashed Christians for it.

No, and this is the critical part, like the captain, you did not hear what Savage said.
What Savage said was: "that we can learn to ignore the bs in the Bible about gay people, the same way we have learned to ignore the bs in the Bible about shellfish, about slavery......"

What Savage did was to make the same argument as the abolitionists, that even though the Bible contains a lot of law on how slaves are to be treated (and the Talmud contains many "updated" laws on slavery too), we should not use it, we should ignore it....and we do, just as we ignore sacrificing rams, among other Biblical law.



-You and other posters spent a great deal of time mystified as to why any of this would be in any way justifiably offensive and historically inaccurate.
I suppose it could be "offensive" to fundamentalists who still might practice every Biblical law, but those are not fundamentalists that he spoke to. You are not a fundamentalist, either.

Lastly, this shows you were wrong.
No, I was not. You, like the Captain, did not listen to what was said. You thought, like the Captain, that Savage condemned the Bible in its entirety, he did not.

He condemned parts of it.
 
What is a Christian to do? Should the Christian fully follow the Word of God, or should that Christian forsake the Bible to follow the rules set forth by secular and worldly man?
You don't FULLY follow Biblical law, that is the point.
 
What Savage did was to make the same argument as the abolitionists, that even though the Bible contains a lot of law on how slaves are to be treated (and the Talmud contains many "updated" laws on slavery too), we should not use it, we should ignore it....and we do, just as we ignore sacrificing rams, among other Biblical law.

Considering anyone here who holds stock in a company that profits in China, I don't put much.....stock into Americans who have a holier then thou attitude about slavery.
 
Last edited:
try to understand -- we don't tolerate intolerance. That's how we get rid of it.

That was a display of religious intolerance... More specifically, Judeo-Christian intolerance.

People in this country are afforded religious freedom, which means they are free to worship in the manner they choose, with the constitutional guarantee that they will not be persecuted for those beliefs. Therefore, it is not proper for the government to allow anti-religious speech to be taught or presented in public schools. Both sides are free to publicly express their opposition to the other, but neither should be given a government sponsored forum to do so.

So it's clear to me that your intolerance for intolerance, is quite selective. It doesn't seem to apply when the intolerance comes from those you agree with, and is directed at those for whom you disagree with.

Identifying and shaming evil = good.

I highly doubt you would take that position if someone were to address High School children on Sharia law, honor killings, hate toward women and homosexuals, and the evils practiced by members of radical Islam.

That's the only reason I still post here on DP -- to identify and shame bad people. And badness is NOT a matter of opinion. It just is. If you don't accept gays and gay marriage, you're a homophobe (a form of ignorant bigotry) and should be shamed into acceptance or get out of our country.

There is nothing wrong with believing homosexuality is a sin if that is what your religion teaches. The day Christians march in the streets and demand their arrest, or call for violence against them, get back to me because then we have a problem. There also isn't anything wrong with opposing gay marriage, as long as you accept their right to form civil unions. Again, as soon as the call for violence goes out, let me know.
 
Last edited:
Hazlnut...Ive just lost alot of respect for you...with that utterly twofaced bs statement...

So, you believe we need to be tolerant of homophobes because its their 'belief'.

What about segregationists? Wasn't that just their belief that blacks should not go to school with whites?
 
Viewed the video again.

Sorry, Savage is a coward. Took a captive audience that he knew couldn't respond, debate or confront him on his BS; yeah, big man, big coward.
 
Viewed the video again.

Sorry, Savage is a coward. Took a captive audience that he knew couldn't respond, debate or confront him on his BS; yeah, big man, big coward.


You far-righties and tea folk love the 'town hall' scream fests where you can just yell down people poking holes in your beliefs. You hate to be lectured to.

Rage-oholics.
 
I'm not Jewish.
Christ was and said that the OT is God's law. If you are not following Jewish dietary law, then you are NOT FULLY following Biblical law.
 
You far-righties and tea folk love the 'town hall' scream fests where you can just yell down people poking holes in your beliefs. You hate to be lectured to.

Rage-oholics.

So you're just going to call names without responding to valid points.
 
Christ was and said that the OT is God's law. If you are not following Jewish dietary law, then you are NOT FULLY following Biblical law.

Christ's sacrifice changed that, ushering in the New Testament.
 
So you're just going to call names without responding to valid points.

Make one and I'll respond.

You expressed being offended by the lecture format? That is very telling. You prefer the town hall scream fest. Can you respond to my point?
 
(1) That does not release you from following the OT. Do you follow the 10 Commandments?

(1) I don't agree with that. Why is it we no longer have to do animal sacrifices to God and other things that happened in the OT? Also, I think we're digressing frm the main topic so if you want to start a thread on it that'd be great.
 
Re: Anti-Bullying Speaker Curses Christian Teens

Of course they have an influence, but the overriding factor is the individual's interpretation of those beliefs. It's why two people can hear the same passage and take very different things from it.
Well, every time I've suggested they have an influence, it's been met with "no, it's just about assholes" and you among others seem to have agreed with that so I don't know where this "of course" is coming from now.
 
Make one and I'll respond.

You expressed being offended by the lecture format?

I've made quite a few points, Hazlnut.

I think Dan Savage was being cowardly with the way he brought about his point, and that the kids who civilly left were in the right.
 
Back
Top Bottom