PDA

View Full Version : Hate Crime bill passes, Christians on red alert


Chris F
10-25-2009, 09:25 PM
Christians on high alert over hate crimes passage

Charlie Butts - OneNewsNow - 10/24/2009 4:15:00 AM

A hate crimes bill sent to President Obama for his signature raises a red flag for Christians.

On Thursday, the U.S. Senate passed a hate crimes bill that Christian leaders have warned for years could greatly infringe on the rights of those who speak to loudly about their religious views. Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel agrees with most observers that President Obama will sign the measure -- adding that the president desires to "throw a bone to homosexual activists because they have been breathing down his neck...and this is a way to hold them off."

Barber views the legislation as something akin to a muzzle. "Unfortunately, it places Christians -- people of faith, people who have traditional values relative to sexual immorality...in an untenable position," says the attorney.

He notes that several years ago, a similar law in Pennsylvania resulted in the arrest of 11 Christians who were presenting the gospel at a Philadelphia homosexual rally. Barber goes on to say that the federal bill "will chill religious liberty and free speech -- and that is its intended purpose, not to protect anybody from hate crimes."

And as for pastors? "There is a very weak exemption in [the bill] which is totally illusory, and a religious exemption is not going to protect pastors," responds Barber. "Renegade prosecutors and politically correct leftists in positions of authority can subjectively determine what is or is not a hate crime." And then move on to prosecution, he adds.

Barber explains that Liberty Counsel intends to challenge the constitutionality of the hate crimes legislation.

KENTUCKYREDBONE
10-26-2009, 01:34 PM
Thought control police!

J.B.
10-26-2009, 01:46 PM
Thought control police!

Not so much...

more like mouth control police

rearnakedchoke
10-26-2009, 02:20 PM
I don't see anything wrong with the bill ... this is more to target those so-called religious groups (something baptist church) who hold anti-gay rallies, preach that homosexuals should die, AIDS cures homosexuality etc. this won't have any effect on a preacher stating that the bible says homosexuality is a sin ...

J.B.
10-26-2009, 02:26 PM
I don't see anything wrong with the bill ... this is more to target those so-called religious groups (something baptist church) who hold anti-gay rallies, preach that homosexuals should die, AIDS cures homosexuality etc. this won't have any effect on a preacher stating that the bible says homosexuality is a sin ...

Westboro Baptist Church.

They are so ridiculous it's actually somewhat entertaining.

rearnakedchoke
10-26-2009, 02:29 PM
Westboro Baptist Church.

They are so ridiculous it's actually somewhat entertaining.

That is the one .. yes ... i know these groups are small, but they need to be dealt with. I don't think that this bill will target regular religious groups .. it will also target religions like islam who have imams that preach hate against the west, homosexuals ... i know people on here think this is just to target Christians, but it really isn't ...

Neezar
10-26-2009, 02:57 PM
That is the one .. yes ... i know these groups are small, but they need to be dealt with. I don't think that this bill will target regular religious groups .. it will also target religions like islam who have imams that preach hate against the west, homosexuals ... i know people on here think this is just to target Christians, but it really isn't ...

No, it is to get those groups to move to Canada. :ninja:


:laugh:

rearnakedchoke
10-26-2009, 03:07 PM
No, it is to get those groups to move to Canada. :ninja:


:laugh:

LOL .. well, since we don't have freedom of speech here, we already have laws similar to this .. and never has a religious leader been charged if they are preaching their religion accordingly ...

eric84
10-26-2009, 04:14 PM
Do you have a link to more explanation about what qualifies as a hate crime or not? I don't agree with threatening people with their lives, but where is the line going to be drawn? If this forces people to not be able to voice their opinions then I don't support it one bit. Maybe they need to pass a law for all those that bash on religion, I feel hate coming from them. If anyone has any additional information on this that would be great.

KENTUCKYREDBONE
10-27-2009, 01:04 PM
I believe that inciting violence is already against the law! If you tell a group of Folks to go out and kill or beat up other I believe you can and should be charged! I think if you hurt someone for fun the charge should be the same as if you hurt them out of racism or whatever! If I say cross dressing shouldn't be allowed in public it is and should be my right to say so. Hate crime laws I think invite certain kinds of people to abuse and use the law wrongly!

Vizion
10-27-2009, 01:10 PM
Yes, if it is inciting violence it should be outlawed. If it is not it should fall under the protection of the freedom of speech.

They want to broadbrush this so that Christian pastors are forced to censor their messages about homosexuality.

Tyburn
10-28-2009, 12:19 AM
Not so much...

more like mouth control police

:laugh::laugh:

Tyburn
10-28-2009, 12:23 AM
Yes, if it is inciting violence it should be outlawed. If it is not it should fall under the protection of the freedom of speech.

They want to broadbrush this so that Christian pastors are forced to censor their messages about homosexuality.

No, they want to stop Christian Pastors going outside of churches and causing problems at gay rallies.

They wont have trouble in Churches, they probably wont have trouble Street Preaching...but if they decided to go to the nearest gay pub and set up an anti-gay stall...well...they might get into trouble.

You cant reach Militant Homosexuals like that, that just adds fuel to their fire, believe me, I know :ninja::laugh:

que
10-28-2009, 02:14 AM
this has nothing to do with christianity but the author of that article makes it sound like it does. there is no way the president or the senate will create let alone pass a bill that allows hate crimes this is spin and fear mongering at its finest.

Chuck
10-28-2009, 04:00 AM
this has nothing to do with christianity but the author of that article makes it sound like it does. there is no way the president or the senate will create let alone pass a bill that allows hate crimes this is spin and fear mongering at its finest.

Bro please tell me you lost a bet????

Either that or you need to un-gay the avatar and sig.... :D

atomdanger
10-28-2009, 06:13 AM
I don't see anything wrong with the bill ... this is more to target those so-called religious groups (something baptist church) who hold anti-gay rallies, preach that homosexuals should die, AIDS cures homosexuality etc. this won't have any effect on a preacher stating that the bible says homosexuality is a sin ...

So... I can't have a meeting and say that homos should die?
Because... i should be able to say that if i want.

Buzzard
10-28-2009, 06:44 AM
So... I can't have a meeting and say that homos should die?
Because... i should be able to say that if i want.

Why would you want to say that? If you said it in a meeting and members carried the task out due to your inciting them to do so, who should be held accountable? You can't yell fire in a crowded theater unless there is a fire in the theater. Again, why would you want to say that.?

atomdanger
10-28-2009, 06:57 AM
Why would you want to say that? If you said it in a meeting and members carried the task out due to your inciting them to do so, who should be held accountable? You can't yell fire in a crowded theater unless their is a fire in the theater. Again, why would you want to say that.?

It doesn't matter WHY I want to say anything.

I should be able to say ANYTHING I want.
(aside from directing telling people to commit crimes)

If I want to say, I think gays are worthless POS's, i should get to.
Or, if white power groups get to make hate speech about jews and blacks,
then why can't crazy religious folks make hate speech about homos?

Buzzard
10-28-2009, 06:46 PM
It doesn't matter WHY I want to say anything.

I should be able to say ANYTHING I want.
(aside from directing telling people to commit crimes)

If I want to say, I think gays are worthless POS's, i should get to.
Or, if white power groups get to make hate speech about jews and blacks,
then why can't crazy religious folks make hate speech about homos?

Do you think that you should be able to yell fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire?

You can say anything that you want, you just have to be willing to accept the consequences of what you say.

Crisco
10-28-2009, 06:57 PM
Do you think that you should be able to yell fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire?

You can say anything that you want, you just have to be willing to accept the consequences of what you say.

That's why there should be loop hole like f you say certain **** the government won't bother you but I'm then legally allowed to punch the dog crap out of you.

VCURamFan
10-28-2009, 07:03 PM
Do you think that you should be able to yell fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire?

You can say anything that you want, you just have to be willing to accept the consequences of what you say.
You're absolutely right...in this case.

That being said, if I want to say "Homosexuality is just as sinful & as abhorrent to God as murder", then that's my right, just like it's John Doe's right to say "I think Ben Westcott is that dumbest most ignorant racist in the world", just like it's Joe Sixpack's right to burn the American flag. Just because you don't like or agree with what I say or how I say it, as long as I'm not encouraging people to break the law or commit a dangerous act, I'm allowed to say it.

atomdanger
10-28-2009, 08:56 PM
You're absolutely right...in this case.

That being said, if I want to say "Homosexuality is just as sinful & as abhorrent to God as murder", then that's my right, just like it's John Doe's right to say "I think Ben Westcott is that dumbest most ignorant racist in the world", just like it's Joe Sixpack's right to burn the American flag. Just because you don't like or agree with what I say or how I say it, as long as I'm not encouraging people to break the law or commit a dangerous act, I'm allowed to say it.

Exactly.
How can we allow people to burn american flags,
or comdemn the president, or talk about anarchy, etc..

and that is all fine,
but some anti homosexuality speech is outlawed? Makes no sense.

If you live a lifestyle that a large portion of the country may disagree with,
IMO its your deal and you're gonna have to hear some crap about it.

atomdanger
10-28-2009, 08:58 PM
Do you think that you should be able to yell fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire?

You can say anything that you want, you just have to be willing to accept the consequences of what you say.

I don't know why you keep bringing up the fire in a theater thing.
How does it relate to talking out against gays?

also, saying "say what you want but deal with the consequences"
is like saying, there are no rules, kill people, but deal with the consequences.
I should be able to say whatever i want, aside from telling people to commit crimes / or some cases of disturbing the peace, etc...
and in that case it would be what you're doing not what you're saying.

Tyburn
10-28-2009, 10:49 PM
It doesn't matter WHY I want to say anything.

I should be able to say ANYTHING I want.
(aside from directing telling people to commit crimes)


but that is exactly what you are doing

atomdanger
10-28-2009, 11:01 PM
but that is exactly what you are doing

Saying I think (or in my opinion) that somebody deserves to die,
and saying, GO KILL, are not the same thing.

the problem is the slippery slope,
soon it might as well be illegal to say anything bad about anybody.

People need to be responsible for their own actions.
Too many murders get blamed on music, or movies, etc...
If I say I hate homos, or any other group, that's one thing,
if you as an adult choose to go murder them for it, that's YOUR doing, not mine.

If we go down this road, we probably have to outlaw being Muslim,
they teach hate towards others.
We certainly have to outlaw racist beleifs, etc...

Tyburn
10-28-2009, 11:13 PM
Saying I think (or in my opinion) that somebody deserves to die,
and saying, GO KILL, are not the same thing.


that depends entirely on the situation

atomdanger
10-29-2009, 01:28 AM
that depends entirely on the situation

Then they should at worst be handled in a case by case situation.

Buzzard
10-29-2009, 02:00 AM
That's why there should be loop hole like f you say certain **** the government won't bother you but I'm then legally allowed to punch the dog crap out of you.

What is it with you and always wanting to punch the dog crap out of people? You sure haven't seemed to learn and apply anything from your good book. You remind me of the saying, "you can take the kid out of the ghetto but you can't take the ghetto out of the kid."

I don't know why you keep bringing up the fire in a theater thing.
How does it relate to talking out against gays?

It relates to you saying that you should be able to say anything you want. You can, but have to be willing to pay the consequences.

also, saying "say what you want but deal with the consequences"
is like saying, there are no rules, kill people, but deal with the consequences.

Not at all, you have the ability to say and do whatever you wish to do, but the consequences happen when you don't abide by the rules of law.

I should be able to say whatever i want, aside from telling people to commit crimes / or some cases of disturbing the peace, etc...
and in that case it would be what you're doing not what you're saying.

You can say and do whatever you want. Again, if you choose to break the law with your words or actions, you should be willing to accept the consequences of your illegal actions. If you stay within the laws, no one is stopping you from saying what you wish to say.

You're absolutely right...in this case.

That being said, if I want to say "Homosexuality is just as sinful & as abhorrent to God as murder", then that's my right, just like it's John Doe's right to say "I think Ben Westcott is that dumbest most ignorant racist in the world", just like it's Joe Sixpack's right to burn the American flag. Just because you don't like or agree with what I say or how I say it, as long as I'm not encouraging people to break the law or commit a dangerous act, I'm allowed to say it.

I agree with you here. Your first two statements are opinion and aren't inciting folks to riot or break the law. No harm, no foul.

Crisco
10-29-2009, 04:22 AM
What is it with you and always wanting to punch the dog crap out of people? You sure haven't seemed to learn and apply anything from your good book. You remind me of the saying, "you can take the kid out of the ghetto but you can't take the ghetto out of the kid."



and you sir have trouble understanding humor. Perhaps it's my own fault and I should realize your generation is much different then mine. Here something for your tastes.

Take my wife please... /que laughter.

Crisco
10-29-2009, 04:25 AM
What is it with you and always wanting to punch the dog crap out of people? You sure haven't seemed to learn and apply anything from your good book. You remind me of the saying, "you can take the kid out of the ghetto but you can't take the ghetto out of the kid."



You can say and do whatever you want. Again, if you choose to break the law with your words or actions, you should be willing to accept the consequences of your illegal actions. If you stay within the laws, no one is stopping you from saying what you wish to say.



I agree with you here. Your first two statements are opinion and aren't inciting folks to riot or break the law. No harm, no foul.

Also by I punching the dog crap out of someone I wasn't talking about myself in the first person.

and also for your information I haven't had a street fight since my senior year of highschool and that was before I was saved.

But please proceed, You look so regal on your soap box =)

Buzzard
10-29-2009, 06:20 AM
and you sir have trouble understanding humor. Perhaps it's my own fault and I should realize your generation is much different then mine. Here something for your tastes.

Take my wife please... /que laughter.

:rimshot:

Then my apologies to you. I surely didn't see that statement as humorous but as how you would like to handle things. We do come from different generations I will agree, but I have no trouble understanding real humor. In fact, most of my friends love my razor wit and are entertained by it quite often.

Also by I punching the dog crap out of someone I wasn't talking about myself in the first person.

That was somewhat hard to tell, but I'll take your word for it. I was also wondering how the person would get the dog crap in them.

and also for your information I haven't had a street fight since my senior year of highschool and that was before I was saved.

Good to hear. Perhaps there is hope for you. :wink:

But please proceed, You look so regal on your soap box =)

I'm not going to proceed when you take all the fun out of it.

J.B.
10-29-2009, 06:30 AM
In fact, most of my friends love my razor wit and are entertained by it quite often.

Pffft...:rolleyes:

That reminds me of a saying..."who needs a girlfriend when you can...", on second thought, I better not finish that joke...

I will just leave it to your "razor wit" and imagination to figure it out.

Play The Man
10-29-2009, 06:45 AM
LOL .. well, since we don't have freedom of speech here, we already have laws similar to this .. and never has a religious leader been charged if they are preaching their religion accordingly ...

I found this interesting article from 2005 on the Catholic Education Resource Center about the effect of similar laws in Canada. Activists tend to use laws like this to advance a particular agenda.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/persecution/pch0080.html



Canada is a country which prides itself on religious freedom and religious tolerance. And in many respects that is true. Citizens are free to practice their faiths according to their traditions, generally without interference from the government. And even when someone's religious beliefs conflicts with a long established Canadian tradition, great tolerance can be shown, as was the case with the first Sikh Royal Canadian Mounted Police officer permitted to wear a turban instead of the regulation hat. That constable started his career in my home town of Quesnel, and he was accepted and appreciated by the community.

Unfortunately, there are two primary areas of conflict between religious freedoms and government policy in Canada: abortion and homosexuality. A group of eight Christians, members of a group called Operation Rescue protesting abortion were arrested and sentenced to jail terms for peacefully protesting outside an abortion clinic. I met one of the men, Donald Spratt, who was incarcerated in British Columbia's maximum security Oakalla prison for his crime he was holding a sign outside an abortion clinic. Currently, he is awaiting trial in the BC Court of Appeal for violating the "bubble zone" of an abortion clinic. Once again, he was simply holding a sign with a Bible verse on it Thou shalt not kill.

A man by the name of Bill Whatcott, an evangelical Christian who is a licensed practical nurse, was fined $15,000 by his professional association, for protesting against abortion on his own time, and also fined $20,000 by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission for speaking out against homosexuality. There is a great deal of intolerance shown towards religious people who express their views in public.



In May 2002, a Catholic high school in Whitby, Ontario, was forced by the Ontario Supreme Court to allow a homosexual student, Marc Hall, to take his boyfriend to the graduation prom, even though the church-run school has strict prohibitions against condoning any kind of homosexual behaviour. And marriage commissioners, who are public employees licensed to perform civil marriages, were told by Frank Quennell, the Saskatchewan Minister of Justice, to resign if they intend to refuse to perform same sex marriages. Several have already. The new legislation currently being considered by the Canadian government provides no protection for civic officials who for reasons of conscience or religious belief will not perform a same sex marriage.

If Christians say publicly that they disapprove of homosexual behaviour because the Bible declares it to be immoral, then that is "promoting hatred". If they quote medical statistics about the HIV infection rates of homosexual men, that is "promoting hatred". If they object to their children being indoctrinated in kindergarten class with information about homosexuality, they are hateful people.
Just a few months ago, a lesbian couple in the Vancouver suburb of Coquitlam arranged to rent a hall for their wedding reception from the Knights of Columbus, a Catholics men's service group. When the group discovered that the marriage was going to be between two women, they cancelled the rental agreement, stating that their religious beliefs prevented them from accommodating a same sex wedding. Even though they paid to reprint the wedding invitations and for the rental of a new hall, the couple is still suing the group in the BC Human Rights Tribunal.

Camp Arnes is a camp operated by the Mennonite Church, located on Lake Winnipeg in Manitoba. A homosexual choir called the Rainbow Harmony Project booked the camp for a weekend retreat. The Mennonites cancelled the booking after discovering that the choir was homosexual in nature, citing their faith, their mission statement and their code of conduct conflicted with the choir's purpose. The choir filed a discrimination suit with the Manitoba Huan Rights commission, where the decision is pending. The Winnipeg school district has now forbidden all school groups from using Camp Arnes as well as three other Christian camps.

My dictionary says that tolerance is "the disposition to adopt a liberal attitude towards the opinions or acts of others, especially those of other religions or ethnic backgrounds." One would think that tolerance would mean that social liberals would be tolerant about our religious beliefs. In the Newspeak of today, however, tolerance means everyone is obliged to take a liberal attitude towards immoral sexual behaviour, but those who practice that immoral behaviour do not have to tolerate Christian beliefs which oppose such behaviour.

Then there's the term "hate". If Christians say publicly that they disapprove of homosexual behaviour because the Bible declares it to be immoral, then that is "promoting hatred". If they quote medical statistics about the HIV infection rates of homosexual men, that is "promoting hatred". If they object to their children being indoctrinated in kindergarten class with information about homosexuality, they are hateful people. Apparently Canadians can hold religious beliefs, but if they tell anyone else in a public forum, such as a newspaper, they are "promoting hatred".

How about "homophobia". It literally means an irrational fear, even terror, of homosexual persons. A phobia is a mental illness, which can be successfully treated. In Communist Russia, dissidents were sentenced to forced treatment in psychiatric hospitals, not because they were mentally ill, but because they had wrong thoughts. I believe it is no accident that the Gay Rights term for disapproval of homosexual behaviour is a mental illness term. In all my years as a mental health professional, however, I have never encountered anyone with an irrational fear of homosexuals. But the definition of homophobia, as defined by gay activists, is the unwillingness to approve of homosexuality. Even toleration without approval is defined as homophobic. So if you have a moral objection to homosexuality, you are "mentally ill" and require re-education. One homosexual activist, John McKellar, who opposes the Gay Pride movement, calls the use of the word homophobia, "a contrived slander" against religiously conservative people. But activists realize that religious people are unlikely to change, which is why they are focusing a tremendous amount of attention on re-educating children in public schools.

Let's take a look at some of the people who have been targeted by homosexual activists.

Mr. Hugh Owen is an evangelical Christian employed as a prison guard. He placed an ad in the Saskatchewan Star Phoenix. The ad was a picture of two stick men holding hands, with a red circle with a bar across, superimposed on them. Below were four scripture references, but not the actual Bible verses. In 2001 he was convicted of a hate crime by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal and forced to pay his three accusers $1500 each. The judge in the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench suggested that using Bible verses in a newspaper ad like this, could be construed as hate literature. So there is now legal precedent in Canada that the Holy Bible is hate literature.

Dagmar and Arnost Cepica, a Christian couple in Prince Edward Island who operated a bed and breakfast in their own home, refused to rent their bedroom to two homosexual men. In 2001, they were charged and convicted of discrimination, and rather than fight the matter in court, they closed their business down.

Then there was the 1996 high profile case of professional printer Scott Brockie, who refused to print material for the Canadian Gay and Lesbian Archives, because he felt doing so would violate his religious beliefs. He was fined $5000 on February 24, 2000, and ordered to print the material anyway. Mr. Brockie took his case to the Ontario Supreme Court, then to the Ontario Court of Appeal and lost both times. The court has ordered Mr. Brockie to pay his opponents legal costs of $40,000. His total legal bills surpass $170,000. Like myself, he has set up a trust fund to help him with this burden, as he cannot afford it himself.

A few years ago, Evangelist Rev. Ken Campbell of Hamilton, placed ads in a Toronto newspaper objecting to the promotion of homosexuality by governments and public schools. He had two complaints laid against him in the Ontario and BC Human Rights Tribunals by homosexual activists. He went to the tribunals, without any legal representation, and basically preached the gospel, outlining in detail what the Bible says about homosexuality. He was acquitted by both tribunals, one of the few victories Christians have had in disputes with homosexual activists.

Stephen Boissoin of Calgary, is an evangelical pastor who wrote a letter to the editor questioning the promotion of homosexuality in the public school system. A University of Calgary professor has charged him with discrimination under the Alberta Human Rights act. Last May, at a fund-raising dinner for him held in a Calgary hotel, masked homosexual thugs burst into the dining room and disrupted the meeting, chanting "Right wing bigots go away, Gay Militia is here to stay". They carried a banner saying "Liberation: Queer Invasion". Their tactics remind me of the Nazi Brownshirts of the 1930's.

Several mayors of Canadian cities have been taken to Human Rights Tribunals for refusing to declare Gay Pride Days in their cities. The most prominent one was Diane Haskett, mayor of London, Ontario. She was found guilty of discrimination in 1997 and fined $10,000. Her sentence was issued during her re-election campaign, and she stopped campaigning. She won re-election by an overwhelming margin anyway. Also targeted were the mayors of Fredricton, New Brunswick, Hamilton, Ontario,(Brad Woodard and Bob Morrow), Kelowna, BC and Oliver, BC, as well as Ernie Reine, the Chief of Police of Regina, Saskatchewan. In the year 2000 every city in British Columbia was threatened with a Human Rights Tribunal lawsuit if they did not proclaim a Gay Pride Day by a group called the Rainbow Coalition. Many cities did, but some cities stopped making proclamations of any kind just to avoid the whole controversy. The Mayor of my town, who is a devout Catholic, refused to sign the proclamation after the city council passed the Gay Pride Day resolution over his objection.

Another concern by religious Canadians who belong to unions is their inability to prevent the unions from using their union dues to support homosexual or abortion causes. Although some labour laws allow union dues to be redirected to a charity for reasons of conscience, the process is difficult and expensive, and some people chose to quit their jobs rather than hire a lawyer to make sure they don't have to support causes they find morally offensive. My own union, the BC Teachers Federation, is an active supporter of the gay rights movement and has published their materials. One of the materials they published states that King David and Jonathan were gay lovers, and that all those who are morally opposed to homosexuality are homophobic and require re-education. Just last month the Ontario Elementary School Teachers Association publicly endorsed same sex marriage, even though many of their members are personally opposed to the concept.

Trinity Western University is a private Christian University in British Columbia which had permission to train elementary school teachers for the first four years of a five year program. As a Christian institution, they require all students to sign a pledge that they will not engage in immoral sexual conduct including homosexual behaviour, while on campus. In 1995, Trinity applied for permission to have their fifth year certified. The College of Teachers sent two committees to investigate, and both of them recommended approval of the program. But the College of Teachers overruled their own committees, and denied approval of the University's fifth year education program, arguing that the University's morality clause would produce discriminatory teachers. They presented no evidence of that position and lost all three court cases. Trinity had to spend $1.5 million on the case and only was able to recoup $168,000 from the College of Teachers. Trinity still has to prove to the College that they provide "anti-oppression pedagogy" courses to maintain certification of their education program.

I am a Christian seven days a week, both on the job and off the job, and I will not compromise my faith to teach falsehoods to children.
Christians writing to Senator Laurier Lapierre to protest Svend Robinson's hate crime bill, Bill C-250 got this response on February 24th 2004. "You should be ashamed of yourself for reading such books" referring to the Bible. He continued, "If your god teaches you to hate and judge, then get another god. You people are sick. God should strike you dead." And in response to one writer who signed her letter, "in God's service", he said, "This letter is more in the devil's service." Senator Lapierre later apologized after receiving a storm of criticism over his hate filled comments. Just recently, Pierre Pettigrew, Canada's minister of foreign affairs, suggested that churches had no business commenting publicly on the government's same sex marriage law.

Prior to the last election, Revenue Canada officials, the tax department, called in representatives of the Catholic and Evangelical Christian churches to warn them that they could lose their charitable status if they tried to influence their members to vote for parties which oppose same sex marriage. One of the most offensive incidents of anti-Christian discrimination was when officials from the Prime Minister's office told two Christian ministers not to make any references to Jesus Christ, the cross, or the New Testament in their memorial prayers during the Swissair memorial in Nova Scotia in September, 1998. At first the Prime Minister's office denied forcing the two ministers to delete references to Jesus from their prayers, but later admitted they did so because they thought that other religious leaders would be offended. Muslim and Jewish religious leaders were free to say whatever they wished, and were able to quote freely from the Torah and the Koran.

And last month, CBC Radio, the government's broadcasting company, refused to accept a paid ad from the Maritime Christian College, because it was advertising a lecture that was going to discuss family issues from a Christian perspective. No private broadcaster refused the ad.

The largest school district in the province of British Columbia in the Vancouver suburb of Surrey was sued by one of its own employees, a homosexual kindergarten teacher, so that he could use books promoting same sex families in his classroom. The Supreme Court of Canada eventually ruled that the school district's decision to forbid use of the books was influenced by the religious beliefs of some trustees and parents, and ordered the school board to re-evaluate the books without any religious criteria. The gay kindergarten teacher was furious when the school board rejected the books again because two were out of print and the third had a grammatical error in it. But two lesbian women are now suing the school board again, because the board had allowed religious parents from Christian, Sikh and Hindu religions to explain their concerns about the books in a public meeting, and the lesbians didn't like their statements. That case will be before the BC Human Rights Tribunal this summer.

Also before the BC Human Rights Tribunal at this time is a suit filed by another homosexual teacher. He is trying to force the British Columbia Ministry of Education to change the entire British Columbia school curriculum for all grades and subject areas to include "queer studies" and "queer role models". If he is successful, even students in religious schools may be affected, as all private religious schools which accept government funding must prove that they are using the BC Curriculum.

Three children on Vancouver Island being home schooled, recently failed to graduate from high school, because their parents refused to teach them a small mandatory course which included sex education, on religious grounds. They regarded the course, called Personal Planning, as an attempt at social engineering and promoting immorality. The mother, Cheryl Howard of Courtenay, took the case to the BC Human Rights Tribunal but lost. Her children had straight A's in every other course.

Then there's my case. On May 9th of 2002 I was convicted of conduct unbecoming a member of the BC College of Teachers. The reason was because I expressed my opinion in my local newspaper. Between April 1997 and July, 2000, I wrote one freelance column and six letters to the editor of my town's newspaper, which questioned the wisdom of promoting the homosexual agenda. I provided factual information on rates of promiscuity and disease infection which had been previously published in scholarly journals. I said that many religions consider homosexuality to be immoral, that it may be caused by negative psycho-social influences, and that it was nothing to be applauded. I said that I would refuse to be a false teacher, compromising my faith to teach information which the Bible clearly says is immoral. I said this not in my classroom, or my staff room, but on the editorial pages of my local newspaper. I had thought that the editorial page was a place where all Canadians have the right to express their points of view, whether other people like them or not. I highly value the freedom of the press, and all points of view should be represented in our newspapers, including those opposed to ours. But a man by the name of Hayward Broun once said, "Everyone favours free speech in the slack moments when no axes are being ground." And how true that is.

I appealed the conviction to the BC Supreme Court, but lost in February of last year. If this verdict is upheld by the courts, teachers will not be able to write privately to their own supervisors to question a new curriculum resource, or write privately their own elected officials on a matter of public policy, nor will they able to address the topic of homosexuality in post graduate research papers. I was disciplined for doing all of these things. This is an unacceptable restriction of freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and freedom of intellectual expression.

The College presented no complaints about what I had written publicly from teachers, none from students, none from parents, and most importantly, none from any member of the gay community. The people who did disagree with me did so by writing their own letters to the editor, and I fully support their right to do that.

The Catholic Civil Rights League, the Christian Legal Fellowship, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, The Christian Teachers Association have banded together to form the Canadian Religion Freedom Alliance to assist in my defence. My union is also supporting me. The case will be heard on April 21 and 22, this year. Joining the College of Teachers in opposing me is the BC Civil Liberties Association, who feel I should be suspended indefinitely unless I publicly recant, and the BC Public School Employers Association.

My school district supervisors have also decided to silence me. They have disciplined me repeatedly for speaking out, including for advertising my intention to offer orientation change therapy services through my private practice. On March 31, I must appear before a formal hearing of the Quesnel School Board to explain why I publicly criticized the government's same sex marriage legislation. I am facing a lengthy suspension without pay, even though not one homosexual person has complained about what I wrote. I've filed a Human Rights complaint against the school district for religious discrimination.

I am a Christian seven days a week, both on the job and off the job, and I will not compromise my faith to teach falsehoods to children.

As servants of the Most High God, it is our duty to speak up courageously for what is right. I do not know what may become of me, of my career. My lawyer has told me that my legal costs could reach a half a million dollars. I have a trust fund called The Christian Public School Teachers' Legal Defense Fund, but I do not currently have adequate funds to defend myself. I am trusting in God to help my defense.

Canada does have religious freedom, but that freedom is under assault. Thank you for inviting me to speak, and may God bless you all.

Play The Man
10-29-2009, 07:01 AM
I don't see anything wrong with the bill ... this is more to target those so-called religious groups (something baptist church) who hold anti-gay rallies, preach that homosexuals should die, AIDS cures homosexuality etc. this won't have any effect on a preacher stating that the bible says homosexuality is a sin ...

Sweden has similar laws and has prosecuted and jailed a preacher for his sermon. Here is a copy of Ake Green's sermon that got him sentenced to jail.http://akegreen.org/en-2-left/en-2-9.htm

The sermon is quite long. In the interest of brevity, I only quote the closing, below.

We must never think that some people, because of their sinful lives, would end up outside of grace. Paul says about himself that he was the foremost of all sinners, but he encountered an abundance of grace and mercy. He also states in First Corinthians 6:9-11, when he lists sexual immorality with other sins, that you can be saved from all the listed sins, including sexual immorality. What these people need, who live under the slavery of sexual immorality, is an abundant grace. It exists. It is valid also for them. Therefore we will encourage those who live in this manner to look at the grace of Jesus Christ. We cannot condemn these people -- Jesus never did that either. He showed everyone He met deep respect for the person they were, for instance the adulterous woman, in John 8, or the woman at the well in Sychar, according to John 4. Jesus never belittled anyone. He offered them grace. We must never belittle anyone who lives in sin. The sin we cannot bear -- but the human being [we must hold up]. Surely we still believe it is as Paul says in the Letter to Titus [2: 11-12]. Listen:

"For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world."

It is by showing all people grace and mercy that we can win them for Christ. We never win anyone by giving them the cold shoulder.

http://akegreen.org/

Buzzard
10-29-2009, 07:38 AM
Pffft...:rolleyes:

That reminds me of a saying..."who needs a girlfriend when you can...", on second thought, I better not finish that joke...

I will just leave it to your "razor wit" and imagination to figure it out.


Aw puddin' pie, are you not getting enough attention? Sorry, but I won't have a battle of wits with you as it is my policy to not battle unarmed opponents or half-wits. You can understand that right? On second thought, maybe you can't. Maybe a special friend can help you figure it out when your bulb burns a little brighter. :wink:

J.B.
10-29-2009, 11:31 AM
Aw puddin' pie, are you not getting enough attention? Sorry, but I won't have a battle of wits with you as it is my policy to not battle unarmed opponents or half-wits. You can understand that right? On second thought, maybe you can't. Maybe a special friend can help you figure it out when your bulb burns a little brighter. :wink:

Wow, there is that razor wit again! I better watch out, I don't wanna get cut.
You're right man, I really don't need a "battle of wits" with the almighty Buzzard "Razor Wit" Ramon. At first I was not sure if it was you, but as soon as you said this line, I knew it...

In fact, most of my friends love my razor wit and are entertained by it quite often.

I've heard stories about you! You're a legend! They say, you come on to forums all over the web and leave a path of tyranny and wreckage after severely pwning the members with your timeless antique wisecracks and "razor wit" that so many people find entertaining. Your ability to troll conservatives is second only to your vast knowledge of the "Jon Stewart Show". They say you just peck away with deep cuts from the blades of your razor sharp wit, until eventually all the members have either died, quit the internet forever, or converted to Leftardism. They say then, and only then will Buzzard Ramon return to his perch on top of the Huffington Post, wating to make his next move.

I thought the stories were just old myths, but I guess it's true. It's really you.

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a360/shockdamonkey/razor1.jpg

There are two ways to fight Internet Buzzards, but resistance has largely proven to be futile. First, the native locals try to ignore their razor sharp wit, but they are still bombarded when the wit manages to slice through their barricade and show up in another unsuspecting member's post. Now, since their brains have been poisoned by the Buzzard's words, they are almost immediately forced to respond. Those who resist the urge are said to recover quickly, but are usually plagued by depression after realizing such stupidity can exist in this world.

The next, and slightly more effective way is to call on the Gods of Admin to wield Ye' Ol' Mighty Banhammer and banish the Buzzard from the forum of intelligent thought which he has invaded. However it is a rarely used tool, and sometimes the Buzzard will actually disappear and then manifest as another alter-ego, continuing to preach the gospel of Jon Stewart.

The only way to defeat the Buzzard is to just wait for it to go away. However, when the Buzzard eventually leaves or is perma-banned, there is usually another not far behind waiting to take his place. Just like real life buzzards, Internet Buzzards are very annoying and should be avoided at all costs. Some Buzzards are so bad that they can actually emit a foul scent from your computer similar to a mixture of sour milk and skunks butt.

Tyburn
10-29-2009, 12:19 PM
Then they should at worst be handled in a case by case situation.

they probably will be :)

Buzzard
10-29-2009, 09:17 PM
Wow, there is that razor wit again! I better watch out, I don't wanna get cut.
You're right man, I really don't need a "battle of wits" with the almighty Buzzard "Razor Wit" Ramon. At first I was not sure if it was you, but as soon as you said this line, I knew it...



I've heard stories about you! You're a legend! They say, you come on to forums all over the web and leave a path of tyranny and wreckage after severely pwning the members with your timeless antique wisecracks and "razor wit" that so many people find entertaining. Your ability to troll conservatives is second only to your vast knowledge of the "Jon Stewart Show". They say you just peck away with deep cuts from the blades of your razor sharp wit, until eventually all the members have either died, quit the internet forever, or converted to Leftardism. They say then, and only then will Buzzard Ramon return to his perch on top of the Huffington Post, wating to make his next move.

I thought the stories were just old myths, but I guess it's true. It's really you.



There are two ways to fight Internet Buzzards, but resistance has largely proven to be futile. First, the native locals try to ignore their razor sharp wit, but they are still bombarded when the wit manages to slice through their barricade and show up in another unsuspecting member's post. Now, since their brains have been poisoned by the Buzzard's words, they are almost immediately forced to respond. Those who resist the urge are said to recover quickly, but are usually plagued by depression after realizing such stupidity can exist in this world.

The next, and slightly more effective way is to call on the Gods of Admin to wield Ye' Ol' Mighty Banhammer and banish the Buzzard from the forum of intelligent thought which he has invaded. However it is a rarely used tool, and sometimes the Buzzard will actually disappear and then manifest as another alter-ego, continuing to preach the gospel of Jon Stewart.

The only way to defeat the Buzzard is to just wait for it to go away. However, when the Buzzard eventually leaves or is perma-banned, there is usually another not far behind waiting to take his place. Just like real life buzzards, Internet Buzzards are very annoying and should be avoided at all costs. Some Buzzards are so bad that they can actually emit a foul scent from your computer similar to a mixture of sour milk and skunks butt.

Ooh, the de-fanged rattlesnake tries to bite and misses. His first unprovoked attack was met and countered and he tried to bite again. The poor little puddin' pie lollipop tries his hardest but fails again. As I said before, I don't battle half-wits, dim-wits, or nit-wits.

Little snake-boy, nice that you crawled out from under your rock to give me your attention. Did the sting finally wear off from when I used your Bill Maher photo against you. Who am I kidding, you probably still don't get it and never will. Keep on trolling me, though I find the attention that you give me to be a little on the creepy side. Go crawl back under your rock. You're not worth my time. I've already wasted too many precious minutes responding to your drivel.

Oh yeah, have a great day. :mellow:

Crisco
10-29-2009, 09:23 PM
This thread is epic.

It's got hate crimes, dog crap, Christians and lefties, Anger and passion and everything in between.

This could be a James Cameron movie. All we need is a friggen boat and we are good to go.

Tyburn
10-29-2009, 09:43 PM
This thread is epic.

It's got hate crimes, dog crap, Christians and lefties, Anger and passion and everything in between.

This could be a James Cameron movie. All we need is a friggen boat and we are good to go.

Please let it be Buzzards boat that sinks first :ninja:

:laugh:

atomdanger
10-30-2009, 01:20 AM
This thread is epic.

It's got hate crimes, dog crap, Christians and lefties, Anger and passion and everything in between.

This could be a James Cameron movie. All we need is a friggen boat and we are good to go.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/content/images/2006/04/26/marathon2006dingy400_400x293.jpg

Tyburn
10-30-2009, 01:36 AM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/content/images/2006/04/26/marathon2006dingy400_400x293.jpg

:laugh::laugh:

Buzzard
10-30-2009, 01:37 AM
Please let it be Buzzards boat that sinks first :ninja:

:laugh:

Here Tyburn, take this napkin, you have something on your nose. :Whistle:

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/3/3_7_9v.gif

I was happily rowing my boat in circles when the Rattletrap decided to cause waves. I admit I should have been the bigger man and let it roll of my back. Sometimes though one needs to respond to an unprovoked attack. This was one of those even though it isn't worth my time.

As for the topic at hand, I feel that some of the stories posted on here are a little out of control and go too far. Both sides need to step back and take a deep breath.

Chris F
10-30-2009, 01:59 AM
This bill is dangerous. And I can tell by the comment that no one has taken the time to read the bill. I will reserve my comments until that happens. The pastor provision is very weak and similar state laws have already placed street preachers in jail in Pennsylvania and were found to be unconstitutional. So this law should never have been passed or signed. It is a present to the gay community for their help in getting the liberals elected in 2008.

flo
10-30-2009, 03:34 AM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/content/images/2006/04/26/marathon2006dingy400_400x293.jpg
:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

J.B.
10-30-2009, 09:35 AM
Ooh, the de-fanged rattlesnake tries to bite and misses. His first unprovoked attack was met and countered and he tried to bite again. The poor little puddin' pie lollipop tries his hardest but fails again. As I said before, I don't battle half-wits, dim-wits, or nit-wits.

Little snake-boy, nice that you crawled out from under your rock to give me your attention. Did the sting finally wear off from when I used your Bill Maher photo against you. Who am I kidding, you probably still don't get it and never will. Keep on trolling me, though I find the attention that you give me to be a little on the creepy side. Go crawl back under your rock. You're not worth my time. I've already wasted too many precious minutes responding to your drivel.

Oh yeah, have a great day. :mellow:

Buzzard, why are you calling me "lollipop"? You must be an old pedophile or something. :scared0011:

Really, you are such a tool it's hilarious. You've wasted your "precious minutes"? WTF? Do you buy your internet by the hour?

Unprovoked attacks? You pretty much spend your time on here looking to bash conservatives at every turn, so any attack on you is always "provoked". I love how you actually find yourself funny, even though nobody else does (except for all your "friends" who are constantly entertained by your "razor wit").

rearnakedchoke
10-30-2009, 01:17 PM
Come on now fellas, we all know both of you are better than this .... I know this is the Politics forum and things can get a little heated, so let's stop with the personal insults (i know i have been guilty in the past) and continue with the issue at hand ...

i will skip the group hug and assume everyone is cool with each other ... anymore personal jabs might make me have to throw my weight around here as a moderator and ban some of you ... oh wait, i am not a mod ... continue if you must ...

rearnakedchoke
10-30-2009, 01:38 PM
This bill is dangerous. And I can tell by the comment that no one has taken the time to read the bill. I will reserve my comments until that happens. The pastor provision is very weak and similar state laws have already placed street preachers in jail in Pennsylvania and were found to be unconstitutional. So this law should never have been passed or signed. It is a present to the gay community for their help in getting the liberals elected in 2008.

Play the Man posted some good articles re: what has happened in other countries with these laws ... SO yes, it may be a disturbing law .... for me, i believe that as a Christian, I would never sway from my true beliefs even if it meant dying ...

Rev
10-30-2009, 02:47 PM
I could care less what the bill or any other bill says. Don't get me wrong, I will obey the laws of the land, as long as they dont get in the way of the word of God. I am a preacher, and the Bible says that Homosexuality is a sin and that is what I will preach. I dont care who or what says otherwise.

donaldbreland
10-30-2009, 04:01 PM
Mike Huckabee 2012.

Chris F
10-30-2009, 04:54 PM
Play the Man posted some good articles re: what has happened in other countries with these laws ... SO yes, it may be a disturbing law .... for me, i believe that as a Christian, I would never sway from my true beliefs even if it meant dying ...

Exactly!!!!

Chris F
10-30-2009, 04:55 PM
I could care less what the bill or any other bill says. Don't get me wrong, I will obey the laws of the land, as long as they dont get in the way of the word of God. I am a preacher, and the Bible says that Homosexuality is a sin and that is what I will preach. I dont care who or what says otherwise.

AMEN!!!!

Chris F
10-30-2009, 04:57 PM
Mike Huckabee 2012.

He will be no different. You want real chnage you need a third party. The only GOP person who would follow the rules would be Ron Paul. Huckabee is a great guy but DC eat good guys for breakfast. And he does not follow the constitution like he should.

bradwright
10-30-2009, 09:20 PM
i know i'm going to take a lot of heat from some of you for saying this but here go's anyway.

let me start by saying i believe that people should be able to do and say anything they want as long as it doesn't interfere with anybody else in any way shape or form...if somebody wants to preach the bible then i say by all means proceed...just dont try and preach to people that dont want to hear it.

i'm actually surprised by some of you that think your beliefs should be every body's beliefs...i'm starting to think that some people here dont realize that there are a lot of people in the world that dont believe in God and they think Christians are at the very least naive to do so.

one of the problems i have with organized religion is some of the people that i encounter that claim to be saved and are now a christian draw a line in the sand and say okay,Christians on one side and everybody else on the other...and you know what ? i'm fine with that,go ahead declair yourself as being better then everyone else just dont try to force your beliefs on people that you think are sinners because that will never work it will only make the divisions deeper.

anybody that has taken the time to read my posts knows that i believe in God,but if you really want someone like me to become a Christian then stop trying to tell me what i'm doing wrong all the time...take some time to tell people about what makes God great,its the kind compassionate God that i'm interested in and not the mean one that some of you portray him to be,i'm really starting to think that some of you are scared of God and you think i should be scared also...well i'm not and i never will be,my God is a kind God that wants everyone to be happy and live peaceful lives,and while i know there is a very real chance that i will wind up in hell when i die because of the way i view religion that alone wont make me become what some of you would describe as a Christian.

tolerance and understanding is the key to peace and happiness.

now please...count to ten.:)

donaldbreland
10-30-2009, 10:16 PM
BradWright we finally agree on something. I am getting tired of a lot of people on here stating that God is a mean Killer. I can't believe for one second that they think God is the one Killing people when in fact it is the devil. I am a Christian but my job is not force religion on you. I don't believe Christianity is a religion. I think religion is all the other stuff people add in to the Bible. I believe in God and I believe he sent his son Christ Jesus down to forgive us of our sins by dieing on the cross to forgive us of our sins.

Tyburn
10-31-2009, 12:01 AM
the key to peace and happiness.


who said that was our aim :huh:

Happiness is irrelevent...and True peace cant be known to this realm

bradwright
10-31-2009, 02:25 AM
who said that was our aim :huh:

Happiness is irrelevent...and True peace cant be known to this realm

well Dave if you are truly not interested in happiness i would have to say your in luck ! besides you i can only think of a few other people that are or were never interested in it either....there for,the line should be short.:wink:

as far as peace go's....dont wait until you die before you make an attempt to pursue it....peace on earth may not live up to peace in heaven but its still something everyone should strive for anyway....who knows,you actually might enjoy it.:)

Tyburn
10-31-2009, 12:23 PM
well Dave if you are truly not interested in happiness i would have to say your in luck ! besides you i can only think of a few other people that are or were never interested in it either....there for,the line should be short.:wink:

as far as peace go's....dont wait until you die before you make an attempt to pursue it....peace on earth may not live up to peace in heaven but its still something everyone should strive for anyway....who knows,you actually might enjoy it.:)

True Happiness can only be found in GOD...the hunt for worldly happiness only makes people more unhappy.

Jesus actually has a very simple demand, and its not world peace. What good is there in leaving people in peace if its not going to get them Eternal peace...rather there is strife now for a short while...rather then After Judgement forever...therefore leaving everyone in peace, or not trying to spread the news and make people see the truth is actually condemning them in the long term to no peace at all.

MattHughesRocks
10-31-2009, 03:00 PM
I just saw this yesterday.Pastor Greg Laurie. One of my favorites.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwAsc2qxk9Y

(it's less then 2 minutes)



True Happiness can only be found in GOD...the hunt for worldly happiness only makes people more unhappy.

bradwright
10-31-2009, 03:08 PM
True Happiness can only be found in GOD...the hunt for worldly happiness only makes people more unhappy.

Jesus actually has a very simple demand, and its not world peace. What good is there in leaving people in peace if its not going to get them Eternal peace...rather there is strife now for a short while...rather then After Judgement forever...therefore leaving everyone in peace, or not trying to spread the news and make people see the truth is actually condemning them in the long term to no peace at all.

I would think God would want everybody to live a peaceful and happy life Dave,do you really believe there is no chance to be happy as a mortal ?

it seems to me that you can hardly wait for your life to be over so you can get to heaven....well Dave...i think you should step back for a minute and try to enjoy yourself a little more while you are still here.
the earth Dave is a part of the Kingdom of God and he created it for us to inhabit while we are in our mortal state...i'm pretty sure he didn't do it so for a very brief part of your eternal life you would be miserable.

spreading the news is a fine thing to do...just try and do it with more love then hate and in the end i think you might be surprised at the results.

Neezar
10-31-2009, 03:13 PM
I would think God would want everybody to live a peaceful and happy life Dave,do you really believe there is no chance to be happy as a mortal ?

it seems to me that you can hardly wait for your life to be over so you can get to heaven....well Dave...i think you should step back for a minute and try to enjoy yourself a little more while you are still here.
the earth Dave is a part of the Kingdom of God and he created it for us to inhabit while we are in our mortal state...i'm pretty sure he didn't do it so for a very brief part of your eternal life you would be miserable.

spreading the news is a fine thing to do...just try and do it with more love then hate and in the end i think you might be surprised at the results.

You seem pretty sure about that. What would be the purpose in that? If we all lived a happy and peaceful life then would the Heavenly promise be so appealing to us?

bradwright
10-31-2009, 03:36 PM
You seem pretty sure about that. What would be the purpose in that? If we all lived a happy and peaceful life then would the Heavenly promise be so appealing to us?

i am very sure...there will be a very big difference between peace and happiness on earth and peace and happiness in heaven...it would be kinda like the difference between throwing a bullet and shooting one out of a gun.

i think God is testing us in many ways while we are here and one very important test is our ability to overcome hardship and truly enjoy what he has to offer on earth.

J.B.
10-31-2009, 03:58 PM
i think God is testing us in many ways while we are here and one very important test is our ability to overcome hardship and truly enjoy what he has to offer on earth.

I can understand what you are trying to say here, and I think you have an excellent point. There is a lot of beautiful things on this planet that can bring us peace and happiness.

While it may not be the perfection that the Kingdom offers, there is still much to be happy about while living on this earth.

Neezar
10-31-2009, 04:51 PM
i am very sure...there will be a very big difference between peace and happiness on earth and peace and happiness in heaven...it would be kinda like the difference between throwing a bullet and shooting one out of a gun.

i think God is testing us in many ways while we are here and one very important test is our ability to overcome hardship and truly enjoy what he has to offer on earth.

I like your answer. :cool:

Chris F
10-31-2009, 05:28 PM
The fruit of the spirit is Joy and peace..... so a Christian has those things because he is saved they are not the object or the goal of his or her existence. True happiness is in Jesus Christ alone.

bradwright
10-31-2009, 05:36 PM
The fruit of the spirit is Joy and peace..... so a Christian has those things because he is saved they are not the object or the goal of his or her existence. True happiness is in Jesus Christ alone.

you make it seem like the only way to be happy is to be saved...well Chris i do not consider myself to be saved as of yet but i do enjoy peace and happiness on a regular basis,besides...i know a few self professed Christians that are not that happy at all....there might even be one or two here amongst us.:unsure-1:

Chris F
10-31-2009, 05:49 PM
you make it seem like the only way to be happy is to be saved...well Chris i do not consider myself to be saved as of yet but i do enjoy peace and happiness on a regular basis,besides...i know a few self professed Christians that are not that happy at all....there might even be one or two here amongst us.:unsure-1:

True happiness can only take place in Jesus. As a pastor I can tell you many you have the facade of happiness are often really miserable. What makes you happy? $$$, people? All these things are but tempera. Jesus is eternal.

As for being happy 24/7 even Jesus wept. But that does nto mean we should stay in a state of sadness. In scripture there was often a time table for mourning. Satan wants you unhappy and miserable or fooled to think you are happy in and of yourself. Gates, Trump, Turner all have admitted battle with depression and sadness. I battled with it myself when my mother died, but I found peace in Jesus. I hope you figure out soon if you want to be saved or not. I think you would be surprised at the goodness God brings. Sure it will be no bed of roses, because Satan will open both barrels but even in the midst of the storm a true person of faith will find peace and Joy. Your honesty is admirable keep searching.

Play The Man
10-31-2009, 06:18 PM
I would think God would want everybody to live a peaceful and happy life Dave,do you really believe there is no chance to be happy as a mortal ?

it seems to me that you can hardly wait for your life to be over so you can get to heaven....well Dave...i think you should step back for a minute and try to enjoy yourself a little more while you are still here.
the earth Dave is a part of the Kingdom of God and he created it for us to inhabit while we are in our mortal state...i'm pretty sure he didn't do it so for a very brief part of your eternal life you would be miserable.

spreading the news is a fine thing to do...just try and do it with more love then hate and in the end i think you might be surprised at the results.

I can't speak for Tyburn, but I don't think he is saying happiness is a bad thing. I think he is saying that it is not the greatest good.
Another issue involves the semantics of "happiness". How would you define it? Is it pleasure? "Happiness" needs to be subservient to duty (to God and your neighbor), conscience, the moral code, etc. If "happiness" is pursued as the greatest good, it can lead to much unhappiness for other people, and in the end, yourself. If it is given its proper place in life, it is, of course, a great blessing.

Play The Man
10-31-2009, 06:44 PM
you make it seem like the only way to be happy is to be saved...well Chris i do not consider myself to be saved as of yet but i do enjoy peace and happiness on a regular basis,besides...i know a few self professed Christians that are not that happy at all....there might even be one or two here amongst us.:unsure-1:


Bradwright, here is how Jesus put it:

36 For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul? 37 For what can a man give in return for his soul?

You can have all the best things this life has to offer (and they can bring you pleasure and enjoyment) and in the end, you can lose your soul.:sad:

bradwright
10-31-2009, 06:48 PM
True happiness can only take place in Jesus. As a pastor I can tell you many you have the facade of happiness are often really miserable. What makes you happy? $$$, people? All these things are but tempera. Jesus is eternal.

As for being happy 24/7 even Jesus wept. But that does not mean we should stay in a state of sadness. In scripture there was often a time table for mourning. Satan wants you unhappy and miserable or fooled to think you are happy in and of yourself. Gates, Trump, Turner all have admitted battle with depression and sadness. I battled with it myself when my mother died, but I found peace in Jesus. I hope you figure out soon if you want to be saved or not. I think you would be surprised at the goodness God brings. Sure it will be no bed of roses, because Satan will open both barrels but even in the midst of the storm a true person of faith will find peace and Joy. Your honesty is admirable keep searching.

let me just say Chris i dont actually believe in God like most people because that to me would mean i have no proof that God exists....well i do have enough proof from things that have happened in my life that i know without a doubt God exists and i know this might come as surprise to you but although i consider myself not to be saved as of yet i do however know the goodness God brings to ALL of the people on earth,its just some people choose not to except it.
you and i are very different, you on one hand seem to spend a lot of time studying scripture and try to literally live your life as you think God intended you to by what you read and thats great...you are a much stronger person than i am because that task is just more then i think i would be capable of.

me on the other hand while i have read the bible a few times i really feel God more then i could ever see him in scripture...so now i live my life as i think and feel God would want me to and for the most part i think i do a good job of it and that is what i derive my happiness from.


i hope Chris you dont take this the wrong way but i'm starting to think you are so wrapped up in the written word that you cant see the forrest for the trees...i think you need to take a step back and try to take in the whole picture.

Play The Man
10-31-2009, 06:53 PM
Bradwright, here is a passage from The Republic of Plato that sent shivers up my spine the first time I read it. The dialogue involves a discussion of the pursuit of happiness vs. the pursuit of justice. Please note that the bolded portion was written several hundred years before the birth of Jesus:

This set us discussing the nature of justice. Glaucon took up the cudgels, after a preliminary skirmish with Thrasymachus.

Assuming justice to be desirable--is it so for itself and by itself, or only for its results; or both? The world at large puts it in the second category as an inconvenient necessity. To suffer injustice is an evil, and to protect themselves from that the weak combine to prevent injustice from being done. But if anyone had the ring of Gyges which made him invisible, so that he could go his own way without let or hindrance, he would get all the pleasures he could out of life without troubling about the justice of it.

Again, imagine, on the one hand, your really consummate rogue who gets credit for all the virtues and is surrounded by all the material factors of happiness; and, on the other hand, a man of utter rectitude, on whom circumstances combine to fix the stigma of iniquity. He will be rejected, scourged, crucified; while the other is enjoying wealth, honour, everything and can afford to make his peace with the gods into the bargain.

bradwright
10-31-2009, 06:55 PM
Bradwright, here is a passage from The Republic of Plato that sent shivers up my spine the first time I read it. The dialogue involves a discussion of the pursuit of happiness vs. the pursuit of justice. Please note that the bolded portion was written several hundred years before the birth of Jesus:



you seem to assume i get my happiness from material things.

Play The Man
10-31-2009, 07:00 PM
you seem to assume i get my happiness from material things.

No, in post #68 I asked for you to define it, so I wouldn't have to assume anything.

J.B.
10-31-2009, 07:03 PM
me on the other hand while i have read the bible a few times i really feel God more then i could ever see him in scripture...so now i live my life as i think and feel God would want me to and for the most part i think i do a good job of it and that is what i derive my happiness from.

i hope Chris you dont take this the wrong way but i'm starting to think you are so wrapped up in the written word that you cant see the forrest for the trees...i think you need to take a step back and try to take in the whole picture.

I understand your way of thinking, even though I don't fully agree with it.

Let me just point out though, that anytime you try to present the argument that I quoted above, you are going to get shot down by most Christians. Most see it as a black and white issue. You either live by the scripture, or you don't.

In my opinion, one of the biggest issues amongst Christians themselves is arguing about a lot of the "actual meanings" of certain passages of the Bible. It happens in Church groups, in daily conversation, and even right here on this forum. So, sometimes issues are somewhat subjective when talking to a small group of people. There definitely is a sense of finding your own way in Christianity, but make no mistake, The Bible is DEFINITELY the guideline. As cliche as this sounds, it truly is the Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth.

bradwright
10-31-2009, 07:29 PM
I understand your way of thinking, even though I don't fully agree with it.

Let me just point out though, that anytime you try to present the argument that I quoted above, you are going to get shot down by most Christians. Most see it as a black and white issue. You either live by the scripture, or you don't.

In my opinion, one of the biggest issues amongst Christians themselves is arguing about a lot of the "actual meanings" of certain passages of the Bible. It happens in Church groups, in daily conversation, and even right here on this forum. So, sometimes issues are somewhat subjective when talking to a small group of people. There definitely is a sense of finding your own way in Christianity, but make no mistake, The Bible is DEFINITELY the guideline. As cliche as this sounds, it truly is the Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth.

i dont need the bible to tell me whats right and whats wrong i have a very good idea about those things myself...besides i'm not trying to fool anyone especially not myself...i sin every day and although i would like to believe i could just stop and never sin again i know its unrealistic....i am only human you know.

and as far as being shot down for the way i view my personal relationship with God....let me just say , let yee who is without sin cast the first stone.

Play The Man
10-31-2009, 07:34 PM
If you asked twenty men today what they thought the highest of the virtues, nineteen of them would reply, Unselfishness. But if you asked almost any of the great Christians of old he would have replied, Love. You see what has happened? A negative term has been substituted for a positive, and this is of more than philological importance. The negative ideal of Unselfishness carries with it the suggestion not primarily of securing good things for others, but of going without them ourselves, as if our abstinence and not their happiness was the important point. I do not think this is the Christian virtue of Love. The New Testament has lots to say about self-denial, but not about self-denial as an end in itself. We are told to take up our crosses in order that we may follow Christ; and nearly every description of what we shall ultimately find if we do so contains an appeal to the desire. If there lurks in most modern minds the notion that to desire our own good and earnestly to hope for the enjoyment of it is a bad thing, I submit that this notion has crept in from Kant and the Stoics and is no part of the Christian faith. Indeed, if we consider the unblushing promises of reward and the staggering nature of the rewards promised in the Gospels, it would seem that Our Lord finds our desire, not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased. We must not be troubled by the unbelievers when they say that this promise of rewards makes the Christian life a mercenary affair. There are different kinds of rewards. There is the reward which has no natural connection with the things you do to earn it, and is quite foreign to the desire that ought to accompany those things. Money is not the natural reward of love; that is why we call a man a mercenary if he marries a woman for the sake of her money. But marriage is the proper reward for a real lover, and he is not a mercenary for desiring it. A general who fights well in order to get a peerage is a mercenary; a general who fights for victory is not, victory being the proper reward of battle as marriage is the proper reward of love. The proper rewards are not simply tacked on to the activity for which they are given, but are the activity itself in consummation.

C.S. Lewis

Play The Man
10-31-2009, 07:48 PM
i dont need the bible to tell me whats right and whats wrong i have a very good idea about those things myself...besides i'm not trying to fool anyone especially not myself...i sin every day and although i would like to believe i could just stop and never sin again i know its unrealistic....i am only human you know.

and as far as being shot down for the way i view my personal relationship with God....let me just say , let yee who is without sin cast the first stone.

You may not need the Bible to tell you right from wrong; as you admit, you have a personal moral code and you are not able to live up to it, let alone God's commandments. The Bible is a storybook about a rescue. God chases us down with his goodness and mercy. Ultimately, he came to earth as a poor baby and served as a passover lamb to cover the sins of those who have faith in him. Everyone will be judged in the end. Christians will have Jesus as an advocate and our sins will be paid for by his blood. Those without Jesus will have to speak for themselves and accept their own punishment. If you don't believe that God will judge sin, then Jesus has nothing to offer you.:sad:

bradwright
10-31-2009, 07:52 PM
C.S. Lewis

hopefully this is directed at everyone and not just at me...although i admit to sinning everyday the majority of my sins are small sins...if there is such a thing as a small sin,you see i very rarely drink and when i do i just dont get drunk and no i dont live like this because i think it is a sin to drink i do it because i no longer have a need or want to do it...haven't for years really.
as far as having Sex yes i still do that but like most everyone else here i limit that activity to something i share with my spouse.

Play The Man
10-31-2009, 07:57 PM
hopefully this is directed at everyone and not just at me...although i admit to sinning everyday the majority of my sins are small sins...if there is such a thing as a small sin,you see i very rarely drink and when i do i just dont get drunk and no i dont live like this because i think it is a sin to drink i do it because i no longer have a need or want to do it...haven't for years really.
as far as having Sex yes i still do that but like most everyone else here i limit that activity to something i share with my spouse.

Bradwright, that post was not directed at you; it was not specifically to talk about drink or sex. I thought it was a good quote illustrating the pleasures of joy. I was just sharing it.:)

J.B.
10-31-2009, 07:58 PM
i dont need the bible to tell me whats right and whats wrong i have a very good idea about those things myself...besides i'm not trying to fool anyone especially not myself...i sin every day and although i would like to believe i could just stop and never sin again i know its unrealistic....i am only human you know.

and as far as being shot down for the way i view my personal relationship with God....let me just say , let yee who is without sin cast the first stone.

Well, if you don't think you need the Bible, that is all fine and dandy, but you are not going to find any real Christians who agree with that. If you consider yourself a Christian, then you most certainly need the Bible for guidance. Nobody is saying that following the Bible makes you completely free of sin, of course we all sin. However, you cannot just assume that you can make up your own rules. This is all providing that you consider yourself a Christian, which I'm not sure you do.

Regardless, don't feel defensive when talking to people around here about it, nobody is trying to judge you or come down on you, I know I am not. I respect your beliefs, even if I disagree with them slightly. I think some of the things you have said are very true, I just don't agree with all of it.

bradwright
10-31-2009, 08:05 PM
You may not need the Bible to tell you right from wrong; as you admit, you have a personal moral code and you are not able to live up to it, let alone God's commandments. The Bible is a storybook about a rescue. God chases us down with his goodness and mercy. Ultimately, he came to earth disguised as a poor baby and served as a passover lamb to cover the sins of those who have faith in him. Everyone will be judged in the end. Christians will have Jesus as an advocate and our sins will be paid for by his blood. Those without Jesus will have to speak for themselves and accept their own punishment. If you don't believe that God will judge sin, then Jesus has nothing to offer you.:sad:

i didn't say i couldn't live up to my own personal moral code,i think once you really got to know me you would see i do that quite well...what i did say was i cant live up to Gods commandments as you put it...not that i know that for a certainty because to tell you the truth i really dont think i could list all the commandments so there for i dont know if i am living up to them or not.

i have never said i dont think God will judge sin,i know he will and i know i will be judged,God will judge me and if her deems it as a appropriate response to cast me in to hell for my sins then so be it....i know i wont be alone.

Play The Man
10-31-2009, 08:20 PM
I think we will keep talking past each other because we aren't using the same definition for terms like "happiness" and "peace". Chris F is using the term "true happiness" and his definition includes living a life that takes into account the commandments of God. I think most people in modern day America (and Canada) would define it as being in a state of material comfort, freedom, health, friendship, accomplishment, and erotic fulfillment. These can be great things. I would argue that in many cases, the Christian life is less happy (using the aforementioned definition). As a Christian, you may be called to a life of poverty, imprisonment, suffering, loneliness, low station in life, and celibacy. Most people are not "happy" under those circumstances. I certainly don't want to live a life of difficulty. The problem is, you may be put in a situation where doing the right thing means that you have to accept one, or all, of the difficult things I mentioned. The scary thing is that in many cases, the person that is the most righteous, has the most difficult (and least "happy"?) life.

bradwright
10-31-2009, 08:37 PM
I think we will keep talking past each other because we aren't using the same definition for terms like "happiness" and "peace". Chris F is using the term "true happiness" and his definition includes living a life that takes into account the commandments of God. I think most people in modern day America (and Canada) would define it as being in a state of material comfort, freedom, health, friendship, accomplishment, and erotic fulfillment. These can be great things. I would argue that in many cases, the Christian life is less happy (using the aforementioned definition). As a Christian, you may be called to a life of poverty, imprisonment, suffering, loneliness, low station in life, and celibacy. Most people are not "happy" under those circumstances. I certainly don't want to live a life of difficulty. The problem is, you may be put in a situation where doing the right thing means that you have to accept one, or all, of the difficult things I mentioned. The scary thing is that in many cases, the person that is the most righteous, has the most difficult (and least "happy"?) life.

well i have experienced 4 of the six that you have stated there and while i wasn't happy with the situations i found myself in i was never unhappy,
i already understand what you and some others say is the definition of true happiness and while i DO agree with you i also think you can be very happy on earth if you just put some effort in... it really is not so unattainable.

i for one have never looked to material things for happiness even though i do like nice things like everybody else if you took them away from me tomorrow it wouldn't affect my happiness as a person but it would affect my comfort level for a few days...two different things in my eyes.
some of the best times in my life is when i had nothing and i actually learned a very valuable lesson from that and took that forward with me in life.

Conrad
10-31-2009, 11:58 PM
Forgive me for re-opening the thread topic 9 pages in, and I 'm not entirely caught up on the discussion.

My co-teacher for Tuesday nights (Bible Study) is an older gentleman who has time to read up on these questionable bills, etc, and read the real text of the things. His comment on the Hate-Crime provisions in the appropriations bill (it was a rider on an appropriations bill, in the end) was that a physical crime or an action must be attached to the "hate" portion. While this moves us closer to the thought police issues, we're not exactly at the position of prosecution for thought alone. We're about 1 step from it, though. That precedent could be set in a court, however,...with their rule of "interpretations."

Play The Man
11-01-2009, 01:18 AM
well i have experienced 4 of the six that you have stated there and while i wasn't happy with the situations i found myself in i was never unhappy,
i already understand what you and some others say is the definition of true happiness and while i DO agree with you i also think you can be very happy on earth if you just put some effort in... it really is not so unattainable.

i for one have never looked to material things for happiness even though i do like nice things like everybody else if you took them away from me tomorrow it wouldn't affect my happiness as a person but it would affect my comfort level for a few days...two different things in my eyes.
some of the best times in my life is when i had nothing and i actually learned a very valuable lesson from that and took that forward with me in life.


Good points.

Chris F
11-01-2009, 04:52 PM
Forgive me for re-opening the thread topic 9 pages in, and I 'm not entirely caught up on the discussion.

My co-teacher for Tuesday nights (Bible Study) is an older gentleman who has time to read up on these questionable bills, etc, and read the real text of the things. His comment on the Hate-Crime provisions in the appropriations bill (it was a rider on an appropriations bill, in the end) was that a physical crime or an action must be attached to the "hate" portion. While this moves us closer to the thought police issues, we're not exactly at the position of prosecution for thought alone. We're about 1 step from it, though. That precedent could be set in a court, however,...with their rule of "interpretations."

Precedence has already been set with some state laws that are similar. As of yet however their respective supreme courts have shot them down as unconstitutional, but I am not so sure the SCOTUS would do the same. This is why it was a bad move and thew fact the attached it to a spending bill is even more egregious.

bradwright
11-01-2009, 05:23 PM
Good points.

i dont even know how to respond to that...and now that i think about it a bit i think that was your intention.:sad:
so i will just say thanks and drop it i guess.:)

until we meet again then.:ninja: