kurt vonnegut said:

---

I'll take that to mean you are one of the people that blue starred a post making light of murdering gay people.

---

Are you referring to the other June thread? Unless a post was deleted, no one suggested murdering all gay people.

Of course! And I'm not suggesting that Christians are wicked or making a joke about them being killed.

The Banned said:

---

I don't normally make the "it's too early to be this drunk" joke but your posts are really incoherent right now.

---

Do you honestly not see this post as judgmental and mocking?

Quote:

---

Let's hope that we have enough righteous men in the USA to avoid the fireworks display that occurred at the first annual pride parade

---

I'm always open to being educated or proved wrong. Can you explain to me what the purpose of this post was (I recognize it wasn't yours).

Right, which is why I described it as 'making light of murdering gay people'. I didn't accuse anyone of advocating for gay genocide, did I?

The Pride Month post, its message and the picture are classless. I started this thread to call out Christians for not saying anything about it.

The Banned said:

---

ETA: if you need someone here to call it classless, I'm your guy. That type of stuff doesn't normally show up on this board.

---

Thanks, thats all I was after.

The Banned said:

---

Your OP said "a justified genocide of Christians". Idk. Just doesn't seem to equate well.

As for the other thread, It became a theology/biblical history class by the 5th post. It wasn't exactly a bunch of gay bashing by all the Christians on this board.

ETA: if you need someone here to call it classless, I'm your guy. That type of stuff doesn't normally show up on this board. More of a politics board kind of post. Which is why I think it became an intellectual discussion rapidly versus that fist bumping that would happen on the other board.

---

mea culpa

The Banned said:

---

Serviam said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Your OP said "a justified genocide of Christians". Idk. Just doesn't seem to equate well.

As for the other thread, It became a theology/biblical history class by the 5th post. It wasn't exactly a bunch of gay bashing by all the Christians on this board.

ETA: if you need someone here to call it classless, I'm your guy. That type of stuff doesn't normally show up on this board. More of a politics board kind of post. Which is why I think it became an intellectual discussion rapidly versus that fist bumping that would happen on the other board.

---

mea culpa

---

I get it. I'm so tired of this crap being shoved in our faces and being called a bigot for simply holding to my views. It's hard not to get frustrated and I know I've said less than charitable things before. It was last year on this board where I started to realize focusing on the sacred heart month does me much more good than focusing on the insane agenda being pumped into our culture.

---

The Banned said:

---

Serviam said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Your OP said "a justified genocide of Christians". Idk. Just doesn't seem to equate well.

As for the other thread, It became a theology/biblical history class by the 5th post. It wasn't exactly a bunch of gay bashing by all the Christians on this board.

ETA: if you need someone here to call it classless, I'm your guy. That type of stuff doesn't normally show up on this board. More of a politics board kind of post. Which is why I think it became an intellectual discussion rapidly versus that fist bumping that would happen on the other board.

---

mea culpa

---

I get it. I'm so tired of this crap being shoved in our faces and being called a bigot for simply holding to my views. It's hard not to get frustrated and I know I've said less than charitable things before. It was last year on this board where I started to realize focusing on the sacred heart month does me much more good than focusing on the insane agenda being pumped into our culture.

---

For the record, I never called you a bigot. I think that mocking posts suggesting the fire bombing of gay pride parades is in bad taste. I'm glad you agree. I also don't think I should have had to fight is hard as I did to get one person to agree.

On a side note - do you think non-Christians get tired of having Christianity shoved in their faces? Or being called 'cancerous', 'degenerate', and 'detestable'?

The Banned said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

For the record, I never called you a bigot. I think that mocking posts suggesting the fire bombing of gay pride parades is in bad taste. I'm glad you agree. I also don't think I should have had to fight is hard as I did to get one person to agree.

On a side note - do you think non-Christians get tired of having Christianity shoved in their faces? Or being called 'cancerous', 'degenerate', and 'detestable'?

---

Did I say you called me a bigot? We're talking about in the general populace here, not just Kurt. So in that context, I have been seen, and I'm sure will continue to be, a bigot in the eyes of many, many people. That's what I was referring to there. It's easy to let frustrations boil over sometimes. No different than how servium, myself and others are accused of being right wing radicals for pointing out human rights issues with IVF on the politics board. It gets old being seen as some radical for holding to what we believe are incredibly rational views. So I was relating to him.

You had to fight hard to get a comment denouncing his graphic because your posts were confusing as hell. Or maybe myself and the others that initially responded have poor comprehension skills. Once you clarified, you got your comment without a fight.

It's very likely that they do. But I don't see a ton of Christian media propaganda, company ad campaigns, tv shows, movies or parades being funneled into our culture. I never saw "keep Christ in Christmas" take off in any of those outlets. Surely you can see how it's a bit different in magnitude. You don't have to scan every kids show designed for children 10 and under for random LGBT crap. My 5 year olds two favorite dinosaur shows have gay couples in them. Not real excited to explain why two girls are kissing to him at this point. Just let my kid watch some damn dinosaurs.

---

I was clarifying that I haven't called you a bigot. I recognize that some ascribe the term automatically to all Christians. . . I am disassociating myself from that practice.

However, the terms 'cancerous', 'degenerate', and 'detestable' were lifted from Servium's post on the pride month thread. Now, I'm not ascribing the use of those terms to you. But, if you object to the way your fellow Christians talk about LGBTQ persons, then call them out. And if you agree with talking about them in this way, then what sympathy do you want from anyone else when you are called a bigot? Too many Christians hate others and then clutch their pearls when they receive hate back.

If it is important to you for people, or American culture (broadly), to stand up for Christianity, then perhaps Christians should consider standing up for someone other than themselves. You know, instead of calling them cancerous degenerate detestables. And I already hear the objection - why do Christians have to endorse homosexuality? I'm not saying that. I'm saying endorse someone else's God given right to decide from themselves without your judgement. And if you insist on judging them, be prepared to be judged in return.

---

I have a friend who moved here from England a few years back. A few months after he moved here, I remember him telling me how funny it was to find American flags and American symbols everywhere. Schools, banks, offices, tv commercials, tvs, bumper stickers, the national anthem at every sporting event, etc. I don't know if it is true that American symbolism is more prevalent here than British symbolism is there. But, what I do know is that once he pointed it out to me, I began seeing flags everywhere I went. And after the novelty of looking for flags everywhere wore off, those flags went back to blending into the background of my day to day.

I think something similar can happen with other cultural phenomenon like religion. I don't think you realize how much Christianity is absolutely everywhere in our culture unless you look for it or unless you are non-Christian. You can't drive 10 feet in Texas without seeing a church. Keep your eyes open for it, and you'll see crosses around people's necks, t-shirts, 'He Gets Us' commercials, our money, our pledge, and bumper stickers. The only national holidays for religious holidays are Christian. Christianity is in our phrases and idioms, our music, and our names. Coworkers praying before a meal. My kids have friends who pray before lunch at school. And all of that is fine and great. If Christianity is part of your identity and you wish to do or say something that expresses that, then by all means, go for it. Every Christian in this country deserves their 1/333,000,000 contribution to the overall character and culture of this country. However, I would extend that same courtesy to people who are LGBTQ. . . . does that make me radical? Should LGBTQ persons not be permitted to be in commercials, or wear shirts that express their views, or make movies? You can build a church on every street corner, but someone waving a rainbow flag is a problem?

I don't endorse your religion, but I sure as Hell support your right to it and your right to contribute to this culture as you see fit. What is so offensive about suggesting others might do the same?

As far as media is concerned, production companies are in the business of making money. If you want more tv shows like 7th Heaven and Veggie Tales, then people have to start actually watching them. If you think there is too much alternative lifestyle representation in your tv and movies, then blame the Christians who aren't watching Christian programming. Or just don't watch it. I never sat my kids down in front of an animated Christian show and then complained about all the Christian 'crap'.

Quote:

---

The equivalent to this would be your kids watching a dinosaur show and they randomly slip in that dinosaurs didn't actually exist because the earth is only 7000 years old. Doubt you'd be happy with that. Maybe you have some counter examples though.

---

WTF? Why on Earth would this bother me? You know what I tell my children when we see something on tv or someone at school says something different from our values? I tell them that there a lot of people who believe a lot of different things and we should have respect for them all. Then I tell them what I believe and why and tell them they get to make their own decision. How massive of a snowflake would I have to be to be upset that a tv show writer or producer had a different belief from my own?

chap said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

For the record, I never called you a bigot. I think that mocking posts suggesting the fire bombing of gay pride parades is in bad taste. I'm glad you agree. I also don't think I should have had to fight is hard as I did to get one person to agree.

On a side note - do you think non-Christians get tired of having Christianity shoved in their faces? Or being called 'cancerous', 'degenerate', and 'detestable'?

---

Again, nobody did that.

---

Rather, than us bicker about it, how about Serviam explains to us what he meant with his original post in the pride month thread? I'm open to being wrong.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Serviam said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Your OP said "a justified genocide of Christians". Idk. Just doesn't seem to equate well.

As for the other thread, It became a theology/biblical history class by the 5th post. It wasn't exactly a bunch of gay bashing by all the Christians on this board.

ETA: if you need someone here to call it classless, I'm your guy. That type of stuff doesn't normally show up on this board. More of a politics board kind of post. Which is why I think it became an intellectual discussion rapidly versus that fist bumping that would happen on the other board.

---

mea culpa

---

I get it. I'm so tired of this crap being shoved in our faces and being called a bigot for simply holding to my views. It's hard not to get frustrated and I know I've said less than charitable things before. It was last year on this board where I started to realize focusing on the sacred heart month does me much more good than focusing on the insane agenda being pumped into our culture.

---

For the record, I never called you a bigot. I think that mocking posts suggesting the fire bombing of gay pride parades is in bad taste. I'm glad you agree. I also don't think I should have had to fight is hard as I did to get one person to agree.

On a side note - do you think non-Christians get tired of having Christianity shoved in their faces? Or being called 'cancerous', 'degenerate', and 'detestable'?

---

It is my understanding (maybe I am missing some other scriptural reference) that when God identifies something as an abomination or detestable, it is regarding the sin or the act of going against God's commands. Not the actual person. Whether a believer or not, we are all God's creation. Always have to go back to the old cliche "hate the sin, not the sinner." It is a bit of semantics, but don't be so quick to condemn Christians who are hateful - they may very well not be a Christian.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

chap said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

For the record, I never called you a bigot. I think that mocking posts suggesting the fire bombing of gay pride parades is in bad taste. I'm glad you agree. I also don't think I should have had to fight is hard as I did to get one person to agree.

On a side note - do you think non-Christians get tired of having Christianity shoved in their faces? Or being called 'cancerous', 'degenerate', and 'detestable'?

---

Again, nobody did that.

---

Rather, than us bicker about it, how about Serviam explains to us what he meant with his original post in the pride month thread? I'm open to being wrong.

---

Don't worry - there is nothing to bicker about. Literally no one did that.

(Unless maybe someone did and those post have been (rightfully) deleted)

Serviam said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

chap said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

For the record, I never called you a bigot. I think that mocking posts suggesting the fire bombing of gay pride parades is in bad taste. I'm glad you agree. I also don't think I should have had to fight is hard as I did to get one person to agree.

On a side note - do you think non-Christians get tired of having Christianity shoved in their faces? Or being called 'cancerous', 'degenerate', and 'detestable'?

---

Again, nobody did that.

---

Rather, than us bicker about it, how about Serviam explains to us what he meant with his original post in the pride month thread? I'm open to being wrong.

---

It was a comparison between the current status of our country and Sodom and Gomorrah pre-destruction, especially relevant since we are now smack dab in the middle of celebrating the exact thing Christian tradition says Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for.

---

Messages from Fatima and Akita come to mind.

If my original post on this thread was equally in bad taste, then I apologize. It was meant to be a mirror of Serviam's post, like you said, to make a point. It may have fallen flat, but it made sense in my head.

So, I'll try again:

Serviam, you showed a picture of a city being annihilated with a caption linking God's destruction of wicked people to a movement to support civil rights and social acceptance of LGBTQ persons. The image takes the attempt of a marginalized group of people to find self worth and pairs it with a God delivered genocide. I view your post as hinting at a genocidal vengeance toward a group of people you disagree with rather than addressing them with humanity or understanding. For that reason, I believe your image and post to be distasteful. You are fully within your rights, as far as I am concerned, to hold and express whatever views you wish. It is not my wish to censor you in any way. The purpose of this thread was to create a post just like yours, but directed at Christianity, to show that it would be equally not funny and that it would be equally lacking in decorum. It was my attempt at satire.

The Banned said:

---

You have no idea how many conversations I've been it where I have tried to delicately and politely explain my views. It is never harsh. Never criticizing. And it is always met with anger and disdain. I was trying to relate to you that this can wear on a persons nerves. I was trying to relate that sometimes this leads to jaded attitudes that can lead to less than charitable posts. I would suggest you did that same thing. You could have responded to his thread, adult to adult, telling him his meme was rude. Instead you started a whole thread about it, admittedly intentionally inflammatory, in order to prove a point.

I can point to the media/Hollywood obviously having an agenda, producing money loser after money loser and never changing their ways. I can do a deep dive into how most of those Christian elements have been radically secularized. Or even explain how church buildings don't get naked and dance in the street. I can even show you how the rainbow flag was designed to SPECIFICALLY piss off christians. We can do all that, and I know it won't move the needle with you, so rather than drag this out any further, let me summarize:

---

I've tried to be careful to post in generalities rather than address you personally. I don't know you and I don't know your views. Hopefully, you think me sincere when I said I wish to disassociate myself from the crowd that calls all Christians as bigots.

Your frustrations are valid. There is a contingency that sees anything Christian as bigotted. Or that sees anyone who doesn't support BLM as racist. etc. I acknowledge this exists and I find it frustrating as well.

Where I am often unable to see eye to eye with Christians is in acknowledging the cancel culture that exists on 'their side'. There is clearly a contingent of Christians that see the LGBTQ community as cancerous, degenerate, and detestable in a way that they ascribe to no other sin. There is a very real hate and prejudice against this group of people. Maybe not you! But its very much there. There are posters on this board that will act as though Christians have been nothing but perfectly tolerant of this group of people and that all of their unrest and frustrations are unfounded.

I'm frustrated that I have to constantly remind people that Christians are not the only people that are permitted to contribute to society. And I'm frustrated that I have to constantly remind people that freedom of religion does not mean ONLY their own religion. I'm sorry that you don't like how LGBTQ themes have seeped into our culture. What do you want them to do? Crawl back into a hole and hide like they did before? You don't get to advocate for your own freedom of speech and expression while simultaneously complaining about what other people are saying.

And the media / Hollywood thing still isn't an argument that resonates with me. Does Hollywood have an agenda? Do a lot of tv producers have an agenda? Yes and yes. There are 200 million Christians in this country, and as far as I am know, its not illegal to make Christian friendly content. If there is an absence of Christian content or too much watered down secularized content, then whose fault is that? It sounds there is a blame toward liberals for not making enough Christian content.

In short - the frustration runs both ways. Very much so.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

If my original post on this thread was equally in bad taste, then I apologize. It was meant to be a mirror of Serviam's post, like you said, to make a point. It may have fallen flat, but it made sense in my head.

So, I'll try again:

Serviam, you showed a picture of a city being annihilated with a caption linking God's destruction of wicked people to a movement to support civil rights and social acceptance of LGBTQ persons. The image takes the attempt of a marginalized group of people to find self worth and pairs it with a God delivered genocide. I view your post as hinting at a genocidal vengeance toward a group of people you disagree with rather than addressing them with humanity or understanding. For that reason, I believe your image and post to be distasteful. You are fully within your rights, as far as I am concerned, to hold and express whatever views you wish. It is not my wish to censor you in any way. The purpose of this thread was to create a post just like yours, but directed at Christianity, to show that it would be equally not funny and that it would be equally lacking in decorum. It was my attempt at satire.

---

You don't owe me an explanation, I'm an almost 40 year old man on a discussion board, I am incapable of being offended by legitimate discussion.

I wasn't necessarily concerned about causing offense, I just wanted to communicate my thoughts more clearly.

The Banned said:

---

Wait a second. I am a snowflake when my 5 year old (not teens or anything close to the sort) are exposed to material that I disagree with and is obviously being used to shape children's views on social norms, but you got upset enough to start a thread joking about Christian genocide (note: not a nation like Serviam's joke but an individual people group) because of a picture on a site filled with grown adults who have the sensibilities to parse through mature content? Do you see any irony there?

You have no idea how many conversations I've been it where I have tried to delicately and politely explain my views. It is never harsh. Never criticizing. And it is always met with anger and disdain. I was trying to relate to you that this can wear on a persons nerves. I was trying to relate that sometimes this leads to jaded attitudes that can lead to less than charitable posts. I would suggest you did that same thing. You could have responded to his thread, adult to adult, telling him his meme was rude. Instead you started a whole thread about it, admittedly intentionally inflammatory, in order to prove a point.

I can point to the media/Hollywood obviously having an agenda, producing money loser after money loser and never changing their ways. I can do a deep dive into how most of those Christian elements have been radically secularized. Or even explain how church buildings don't get naked and dance in the street. I can even show you how the rainbow flag was designed to SPECIFICALLY piss off christians. We can do all that, and I know it won't move the needle with you, so rather than drag this out any further, let me summarize:

How about we do what you suggested and all try to do better rather than complain about what the other has done. Serviam has admitted that he could have done better. You can too, or not. It really doesn't matter to me.

---

If a Muslim were to calmly and kindly express their views that women should be covered up, by law. Let's use the Saudi version as a more dramatic example. Would you not still expect most everyone to still meet such a view with disdain?

I think a calm response should be met with a calm response. But that doesn't free you from being met with disdain if your views, expressed however genuinely are simply considered immoral by the one you are speaking to.

If I hazard a guess I think the gay marriage/gay acceptance change in society is an experience Christians simply aren't used to. Most the time when people reject a religious dogma they can see the benefit and acknowledge that it's preventing a harm but consider it overly strict or simply none of their business.

For instance Muslims prohibition on alcohol. Or previous generations of Christians insistence on modest dress.

But there are areas where religious morality is considered to various degrees immoral, unjustified, or simply unintelligent by the general population. The most striking examples can think of Muslim honor killings and certain Christian sects that deny medical care.

A lesser immoral stance is something like Muslim dress requirements for women being strictly enforced. And now in the west, views that homosexuality be considered an abomination and otherwise outlawed, repressed, or given second class status depending on where we are talking about.

This is a different category, the view is considered an outright negative thing, not simply overly strict about a good thing.