[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Doesn't it already?

You make fun, Laminar, but the War on Christmas is a very real thing.

[Laminar]

I was being serious! Isn't a persecution complex the foundation of many evangelicals?

[The Final Dakar]

My post was tongue in cheek. The Christians must be the most persecuted majority in history.

[Laminar]

I don't know what's real anymore.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

I don't know what's real anymore.

Our love?

[sek929]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

The sh*t Christians receive online is repugnant

Oh boo-****ing-hoo, the shit women get on the internet dwarfs the poor poor Christians by an order of magnitude. It's almost as if judging everyone from their high horses since the dawn of time has fostered a backlash against Christians, crazy I know.

This whole persecution complex Christians have is hilarious, they are still in the vast majority in this country and last I checked every single president we've ever had has been a believer in Christ. Tough times indeed.

[subego]

I don't understand how one could come across someone like, say, Jawbone, and think "oh... let's **** with this guy".

Any given conversation may not involve him, but he's part of this public square. Do people think the shit they throw doesn't land on him, too?

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Doesn't it already?

No.

Originally Posted by sek929 

Oh boo-****ing-hoo, the shit women get on the internet dwarfs the poor poor Christians by an order of magnitude. It's almost as if judging everyone from their high horses since the dawn of time has fostered a backlash against Christians, crazy I know.

The irony here is staggering. Yes, yes, disagreeing with a woman on the internet is now a stoning offense, I forgot. Look what happened to Notch recently.

This whole persecution complex Christians have is hilarious, they are still in the vast majority in this country and last I checked every single president we've ever had has been a believer in Christ. Tough times indeed.

The stupidity is believing that a majority can't be persecuted; unfortunately that's something Regressives on the Left have been trying to shovel for a while now, and the reason why activist crybullies have become so successful.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by subego 

I don't understand how one could come across someone like, say, Jawbone, and think "oh... let's **** with this guy".

Any given conversation may not involve him, but he's part of this public square. Do people think the shit they throw doesn't land on him, too?

JB is a perfect example of the opposite of what I said. I don't doubt for a second we disagree on a great many things, but he's always been very non-judgmental and a great guy to game out with.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

The irony here is staggering. Yes, yes, disagreeing with a woman on the internet is now a stoning offense, I forgot. Look what happened to Notch recently.

I see you're already starting to be willfully obtuse on this subject. I'm not talking about disagreeing with women...I'm talking about threatening to rape, butcher, ****, etc... Of course you already knew that but you saw another avenue to bitch about progressives....speaking of.....

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

The stupidity is believing that a majority can't be persecuted; unfortunately that's something Regressives on the Left have been trying to shovel for a while now, and the reason why activist crybullies have become so successful.

Hey look, right on cue. Don't you have a thread somewhere to vent about this stuff?

The most malicious and vile things on the internet I have ever read are almost all exclusively aimed at women. Pretty women, ugly women...doesn't matter.

Atheists are huge d-bags to Christians online, but their tone usually never rises above mockery.

[subego]

Originally Posted by sek929 

JB is a perfect example of the opposite of what I said. I don't doubt for a second we disagree on a great many things, but he's always been very non-judgmental and a great guy to game out with.

That's my point.

Because of people like Jawbone, I reel it in.

[el chupacabra]

The majority aren't Christian. The Majority are superstitious /agnostic and always have been. The majority getting presents for Christmas and hunting eggs for Easter; or believing in a couple bible characters (Jesus / God) doesn't make them Christians. Everyone believing in an afterlife, and themselves to be one of the good guys who will go there, doesn't make them a Christian. Most people don't go to church and don't have a clue what the bible (the supposed manual to the religion) says, nor do they care. The average person takes their astrological sign, black cats, and stepping on sidewalk cracks (all sins to believe in) more seriously than anything the bible says. They believe in all the pretty things about 4 fun things, and none of the uncomfortable things. These superstitious "Christians" would be the first to throw stones at anyone who inconvenienced them with real scripture.

It's the same all over the world. In parts of Asia everyone claims to be a Buddhist, but have no clue about Buddhist beliefs such as the basic 4 noble truths.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by subego 

That's my point.

Because of people like Jawbone, I reel it in.

People like Jawbone (and many others) are why I reeled in my dickish Atheism a while ago to be honest. I see your point now. When you respond to other religious members with contempt and mockery you also mock a user like JB.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by sek929 

I see you're already starting to be willfully obtuse on this subject. I'm not talking about disagreeing with women...I'm talking about threatening to rape, butcher, ****, etc...

I don't understand how one group getting poor treatment means that poor treatment towards another group is somehow justifiable. What? "So and so catches a lot of crap." "Oh yeah, well it's not as bad as these people." Is this an oppression competition? Besides, women aren't more likely than men to be harassed online. 5 facts about online harassment | Pew Research Center

Hey look, right on cue. Don't you have a thread somewhere to vent about this stuff?

Atheists are huge d-bags to Christians online, but their tone usually never rises above mockery.

At least you admit that, but being d-bags to Christians is fine, but don't do that to a woman, oh no, if anything happens to them it's somehow worse, for whatever reason.

[subego]

Originally Posted by sek929 

I see your point now. When you respond to other religious members with contempt and mockery you also mock a user like JB.

Yes.

Further, for those whom which contempt is felt, if you pull away enough layers... enough reasons why it's buried under there instead in the light of day, you'd find a Jawbone.

Is religion why this better part of themselves is buried? Possibly, but it can't be quite that simple, otherwise you wouldn't have a Jawbone in the first place.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

The majority aren't Christian. The Majority are superstitious /agnostic and always have been. The majority getting presents for Christmas and hunting eggs for Easter; or believing in a couple bible characters (Jesus / God) doesn't make them Christians. Everyone believing in an afterlife, and themselves to be one of the good guys who will go there, doesn't make them a Christian. Most people don't go to church and don't have a clue what the bible (the supposed manual to the religion) says, nor do they care. The average person takes their astrological sign, black cats, and stepping on sidewalk cracks (all sins to believe in) more seriously than anything the bible says. They believe in all the pretty things about 4 fun things, and none of the uncomfortable things. These superstitious "Christians" would be the first to throw stones at anyone who inconvenienced them with real scripture.

It's the same all over the world. In parts of Asia everyone claims to be a Buddhist, but have no clue about Buddhist beliefs such as the basic 4 noble truths.

Agreed. Most Americans aren't Christian in the religious sense, they're culturally Christian, which is another thing altogether.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Agreed. Most Americans aren't Christian in the religious sense, they're culturally Christian, which is another thing altogether.

While it makes perfect logical sense, its a totally bogus cop out. If you believe in Jesus and god, heaven and hell, if you pray, if you ever go to church you are a Christian. There is some wiggle room there but beyond that, no-one gets to fuss over the finer details of such a qualification.
Christians of course are not the only group who disown people whenever they cross certain lines (usually lines that could bring criticism on the group as a whole). Its a favourite of the pro-gun crowd as well. You're a responsible gun owner until you're an irresponsible one and then you don't count any more by definition. Very convenient.

None of this has much bearing on which is the cause of a behaviour and which is the effect.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

While it makes perfect logical sense, its a totally bogus cop out. If you believe in Jesus and god, heaven and hell, if you pray, if you ever go to church you are a Christian.

In contrast, your post makes no sense at all. Most people don't pray, or believe in Jesus and all the rest, they loosely pay lip service due to tradition. So, yes, they're cultural Christians and that's about it.

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

While it makes perfect logical sense, its a totally bogus cop out. If you believe in Jesus and god, heaven and hell, if you pray, if you ever go to church you are a Christian. There is some wiggle room there but beyond that, no-one gets to fuss over the finer details of such a qualification.

See most people who say they're Christian dont go to church, that's the thing... And Im not fussing over fine details but the 99.99% of the scripture based philosophy aside from Christmas, Easter bunnies, heaven/hell/God. A belief in God isn't just a Christian thing; Taoists, Zoroastrianism, Jews, Muslims and even some Hindus and Buddhists believe in a monotheistic Godhead. They all pray too, mostly only when things go wrong in their life, like a superstitious ritual. Most people in the world believe in heaven (an idea which they stole from real religions) regardless of superstition because it's a comforting thing to believe in.

Christians of course are not the only group who disown people whenever they cross certain lines (usually lines that could bring criticism on the group as a whole). Its a favourite of the pro-gun crowd as well. You're a responsible gun owner until you're an irresponsible one and then you don't count any more by definition. Very convenient.

I understand the irritation in some contexts; such as the beloved town pastor who was found to be a molester.... And we say "well he wasn't a TRUE Christian...", which may be true, but not for all practical purposes. However the line still has to be drawn somewhere. In the same way Zimmerman isn't a cop just because he calls himself a cop, or the tribal medicine man isnt a doctor because he says so. A person with a science degree isn't a scientist.

A religion is an entire philosophy of life, if the majority are ignoring that entirely, and only acknowledging 3 days as excuses to party and praying to 'some' chief god as a last hope during distraught times, then they aren't part of a religion. Therefore the majority aren't subscribed to any particular religion but simply superstitious.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by sek929 

I see you're already starting to be willfully obtuse on this subject. I'm not talking about disagreeing with women...I'm talking about threatening to rape, butcher, ****, etc... Of course you already knew that but you saw another avenue to bitch about progressives....speaking of.....

and there's this: Twitter abuse - '50% of misogynistic tweets from women' - BBC News

That's kinda embarrassing. Chicks are #Savage.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

In contrast, your post makes no sense at all. Most people don't pray, or believe in Jesus and all the rest, they loosely pay lip service due to tradition. So, yes, they're cultural Christians and that's about it.

How do you know who prays and who doesn't?

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

See most people who say they're Christian dont go to church, that's the thing... And Im not fussing over fine details but the 99.99% of the scripture based philosophy aside from Christmas, Easter bunnies, heaven/hell/God. A belief in God isn't just a Christian thing; Taoists, Zoroastrianism, Jews, Muslims and even some Hindus and Buddhists believe in a monotheistic Godhead. They all pray too, mostly only when things go wrong in their life, like a superstitious ritual. Most people in the world believe in heaven (an idea which they stole from real religions) regardless of superstition because it's a comforting thing to believe in.

To someone who isn't at all religious the not so fine details are still pretty fine.

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

I understand the irritation in some contexts; such as the beloved town pastor who was found to be a molester.... And we say "well he wasn't a TRUE Christian...", which may be true, but not for all practical purposes. However the line still has to be drawn somewhere. In the same way Zimmerman isn't a cop just because he calls himself a cop, or the tribal medicine man isnt a doctor because he says so. A person with a science degree isn't a scientist.

I'm not sure I agree with this. There are pretty well-defined criteria when it comes to being a cop. Does someone have to be paid or regularly published to call themselves a scientist? As with so much in life, its about where people draw the line.

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

A religion is an entire philosophy of life, if the majority are ignoring that entirely, and only acknowledging 3 days as excuses to party and praying to 'some' chief god as a last hope during distraught times, then they aren't part of a religion. Therefore the majority aren't subscribed to any particular religion but simply superstitious.

Like I say, I understand why individuals get disowned, and I even agree that its often justifiable. I guess the motive matters more in some cases. If you are only disowning them because they are making your group look bad, no dice. Maybe you should have kicked them out before they got caught raping kids.

Don't forget you don't need to follow the rules to believe in the system. Gang members and drug cartels are able to reconcile murdering each other for money, territory, pride or prestige but many still pray and go to church much more often than many who don't murder people. Are they still Christians? I know they think so.

You call it a philosophy, I call it a belief system. If you believe it to be the truth then you are a member of that group. You could argue that if they truly believed then they would follow the rules but thats not a route you want to go down. People act contrary to their beliefs and best interests all the time. I know for certain that eating donuts is unhealthy but I eat them anyway.


Religion unlike being a cop is inherently something you decide and declare for yourself. I guess you could try to excommunicate several hundred million people but its unenforceable. There would be no religious people left by the time you were done. Or everyone would be the global head of their own church.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by subego 

I don't understand how one could come across someone like, say, Jawbone, and think "oh... let's **** with this guy".

Any given conversation may not involve him, but he's part of this public square. Do people think the shit they throw doesn't land on him, too?

Originally Posted by sek929 

JB is a perfect example of the opposite of what I said. I don't doubt for a second we disagree on a great many things, but he's always been very non-judgmental and a great guy to game out with.

This forum (and how great a lot of you guys are) is actually a big part of what changed me. I used to argue constantly in the Political/War Lounge until I realized two things:
1. I wasn't changing anyone's mind on political issues.
2. I was validating some people's negative, combative perception of Christians, which made me a sucky representative.

I don't know if changing my tone and getting less involved in those controversial issues has much of an effect, but it doesn't really matter if you guys think I'm a nice guy — it only matters if it helps soften others' perception of Christianity.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

At least you admit that, but being d-bags to Christians is fine, but don't do that to a woman, oh no, if anything happens to them it's somehow worse, for whatever reason.

I will say this: I've started realizing how openly hostile some portions of culture have become to traditional Christianity. Not only do they demonize Christians (usually on social media), but become incensed when they try to defend themselves, even when done the right way.

I don't think it's the majority by any stretch of the imagination, but certainly the most vocal.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

I will say this: I've started realizing how openly hostile some portions of culture have become to traditional Christianity. Not only do they demonize Christians (usually on social media), but become incensed when they try to defend themselves, even when done the right way.

My theory...

The "culture" of the Internet was created at universities in the 90's, by undergraduate college students.

Undergrads, then and now, tend towards being left wing, pro-gay, anti-religion, indignant mfer's who think they know it all.

So that's what the Internet is.

[subego]

Whoops. Accidental second post.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by subego 

Undergrads, then and now, tend towards being left wing, pro-gay, anti-religion, indignant mfer's who think they know it all.

So that's what the Internet is.

Just imagine what it will be in 10 years, considering what is being proclaimed as "hate speech" in colleges today. Simple disagreement with the radical Left will be forbidden. Hell, we're already beginning to see this happen on the largest social media sites. --> https://www.androidheadlines.com/201...te-speech.html

Thankfully it looks more and more like Britain is going to GTFO of the EU while the getting is good.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Just imagine what it will be in 10 years, considering what is being proclaimed as "hate speech" in colleges today. Simple disagreement with the radical Left will be forbidden. Hell, we're already beginning to see this happen on the largest social media sites. --> https://www.androidheadlines.com/201...te-speech.html

Thankfully it looks more and more like Britain is going to GTFO of the EU while the getting is good.

How long before wearing a crucifix is considered hate speach?

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

How long before wearing a crucifix is considered hate speach?

It'll depend on who you are and how you wear it, obviously.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

It'll depend on who you are and how you wear it, obviously.

I wear mine all the time. I was asked by a co worker to get one for him.



A lot can change, and has in three years. This was in Jan. of 2013. Who knows how the Court would rule today with the influx of ME immigrants into the EU since then.
Cross ban did infringe BA worker's rights, Strasbourg court rules | Law | The Guardian

[Jawbone54]

Mine has training wheels.



Joking aside, there is a guy who has carried one about this size around Shreveport, Louisiana for 20+ years, except he did it without any sort of aid. He wasn't a street preacher either — just kind of polite and quiet.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Mine has training wheels.



Joking aside, there is a guy who has carried one about this size around Shreveport, Louisiana for 20+ years, except he did it without any sort of aid. He wasn't a street preacher either — just kind of polite and quiet.

I remember seeing Arthur Blessit on TBN back in the 1970's.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

That's a thing that I simply never understood, at all. As a Christian you accept that Jesus carried the cross for you, so that you would never need to. To me it's like a kid "helping" his dad carry firewood, they grab a twig while he's hauling several large logs.

"Wow, look, I got this stick!"
"Yeah, that's great son, definitely couldn't do it without your help..."

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

That's a thing that I simply never understood, at all. As a Christian you accept that Jesus carried the cross for you, so that you would never need to. To me it's like a kid "helping" his dad carry firewood, they grab a twig while he's hauling several large logs.

"Wow, look, I got this stick!"
"Yeah, that's great son, definitely couldn't do it without your help..."

Because he said to.

Luke 9:23 (RSVCE)

23 And he said to all, “If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Pretty sure that's a huge metaphor, there.

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

To someone who isn't at all religious the not so fine details are still pretty fine.

The religion is defined by the bible. How is it "fine details" if people dont follow any part of that book? Believing thats there's a god and everyone's going to heaven
is something most people believe all over the world regardless of religion, we dont call them Christians.

I'm not sure I agree with this. There are pretty well-defined criteria when it comes to being a cop. Does someone have to be paid or regularly published to call themselves a scientist? As with so much in life, its about where people draw the line.

Personally where I draw the line for someone to be considered a Christian, is requiring that they be very knowledgeable of the bible and attend church ( As for their personal relationship with God and all that, it's none of my business). But Im willing to compromise for the sake of your argument and say they at least need to do 1 of these things. Im not even requiring that they follow the bible here, just know what it says. Can we at least agree if someone doesn't go to church or have a clue what the bible says their proclamation of Christian is completely false?

Like I say, I understand why individuals get disowned, and I even agree that its often justifiable. I guess the motive matters more in some cases. If you are only disowning them because they are making your group look bad, no dice. Maybe you should have kicked them out before they got caught raping kids.

For the people Im addressing; They're not my people so there is no disowning them. They dont attend church. Christians dont cross circles with them in a religious sense. They just believe in Heaven, may believe Jesus existed, and celebrate Christmas... These people, the majority of people in the US, have more in common with atheists/agnostics than with Christians, and would take the side of atheists & agnostics before Christians. On the subject of molestation there is a long history of nonreligious molesters joining churches just to get close to families/kids while seeming innocent, Trojan horse concept. Im not sure what the church is suppose to do about this. Just another angle the church is constantly under attack from.

Religion unlike being a cop is inherently something you decide and declare for yourself. I guess you could try to excommunicate several hundred million people but its unenforceable. There would be no religious people left by the time you were done. Or everyone would be the global head of their own church.

There is no excommunicating people who dont attend church or pay to it. The rest of what you say here is true but Im just saying dont call them "Christian". Thats stealing a name from a religion which is already established. People who follow their own personal religion or in most cases simple superstitions need to have it recognized as something else, because thats what it is.

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

This forum (and how great a lot of you guys are) is actually a big part of what changed me. I used to argue constantly in the Political/War Lounge until I realized two things:
1. I wasn't changing anyone's mind on political issues.

I've noticed this is something many on here have said over the years (and on other forums as well).
But it's a common misconception. On here especially, people change their minds all the time based on pl debates. I know I do it, and I've noticed clearly people pulling 180s on their beliefs over the years, arguing complete opposite stance of what they used to. They may not realize they do it. And It's not readily apparent because it never happens over night in a single thread debate. It takes months to a few years for things people have talked about to be processed. The 2 problems are people getting angry at disagreement, or getting offended at disagreement, rather than realizing that the conversation has reached its end. Anyway everyone here has changed the minds of others in some respect

[sek929]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

How long before wearing a crucifix is considered hate speach?

Your persecution complex really is astounding.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by sek929 

Your persecution complex really is astounding.

Meanwhile people are losing their businesses. Even after the SCOTUS suspended enforcement of fines after it remanded the HHS contraceptive mandate back to the lower courts, HHS issued another rule aimed at hospitals.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Mentioned by Chongo earlier but, NO. HELL NO!

Obama Threatens Hospitals: Perform Sex Changes; Or Else
http://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/fil...0%28508%29.pdf

Does that mean John Hopkins will have start doing them again?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Does that mean John Hopkins will have start doing them again?

Do you make a distinction between individual doctors and the hospital as a whole? I can see situations where you can force an institution to do something but I think it is very different for individuals.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

The religion is defined by the bible. How is it "fine details" if people dont follow any part of that book? Believing thats there's a god and everyone's going to heaven
is something most people believe all over the world regardless of religion, we dont call them Christians.

For you the following is clearly the important part. For me its the believing.

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

Personally where I draw the line for someone to be considered a Christian, is requiring that they be very knowledgeable of the bible and attend church ( As for their personal relationship with God and all that, it's none of my business). But Im willing to compromise for the sake of your argument and say they at least need to do 1 of these things. Im not even requiring that they follow the bible here, just know what it says. Can we at least agree if someone doesn't go to church or have a clue what the bible says their proclamation of Christian is completely false?

I think that would disqualify a hefty section of American Christianity wouldn't it?
While the belief in a religious doctrine doesn't always compel individuals to follow it to the letter, I think it certainly influences and is used to justify their thoughts, attitudes, behaviours and actions in everyday life. Whether its how well they treat their families or how they vote in elections. The influence is often significant for more than just themselves.
For this reason, I am happier to lump them in with the more devout believers.

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

For the people Im addressing; They're not my people so there is no disowning them. They dont attend church. Christians dont cross circles with them in a religious sense. They just believe in Heaven, may believe Jesus existed, and celebrate Christmas... These people, the majority of people in the US, have more in common with atheists/agnostics than with Christians, and would take the side of atheists & agnostics before Christians. On the subject of molestation there is a long history of nonreligious molesters joining churches just to get close to families/kids while seeming innocent, Trojan horse concept. Im not sure what the church is suppose to do about this. Just another angle the church is constantly under attack from.

In saying this though you have just disowned them. You're on the money that many are closer in deed and even philosophy to atheists or agnostics, and its probably true that even I have a better idea of what the bible says than a very significant section American Christianity, but they would feel far more comfortable identifying alongside you than me. I don't think so many would readily take the side of an atheist as you think, but this is in the midst of drastic change in that direction.
We all want to disown the molesters of course, but surely its less work to be a teacher or a kidnapper than to study for the clergy? The Catholic policy of knowingly exposing children to dangerous men and then covering up has probably damaged all churches and perhaps its a little unfair but that said rarely a week goes by I don't read about some minister from the south caught raping a teenager in his van or trawling the internet for underage partners.There is a whole cause and effect argument to be had about environments of excessive sexual repression and sexual assaults or perversions arising from it. Look at the way ISIS behaves towards women. This is probably a whole thread in itself.

Like it or not most churches have to play politics and pursue bums in seats to some extent, whether its for honourable reasons to keep their congregation alive or a profit-driven megachurch. As such these name-only Christians are of value to you listed on a census, or with their names on petitions or donor lists but when it suits they are cast aside for their failure to meet your standards.
I sound like I'm totally condemning you for it but its perfectly logical. If you were a season ticket holder at your local team you might not consider they guy who comes to one or two games a season when the sun is out to be a 'real fan' but of course you wouldn't object to the cost of his ticket contributing to the signing of the next superstar player to arrive.

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

There is no excommunicating people who dont attend church or pay to it. The rest of what you say here is true but Im just saying dont call them "Christian". Thats stealing a name from a religion which is already established. People who follow their own personal religion or in most cases simple superstitions need to have it recognized as something else, because thats what it is.

The thing about labels is that while its tempting to treat them as simple nouns, they aren't. Many objects can be easily defined to qualify for their names. Unless you're really in the mood to philosophise, we all know a chair or a table when we see one regardless of the huge variety that exist. Religious labels mean something different to everyone and very few have any right to pass absolute ruling one way or another.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Does that mean John Hopkins will have start doing them again?

Are Catholics against sex change operations? I'm not sure I get why.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Are Catholics against sex change operations? I'm not sure I get why.

They're against gouging out your own eyes and cutting off your fingers, too. Because they see the body as a temple and sex changes as mutilation. (They're none too happy about tattoos and extensive body piercing, either.)

[Waragainstsleep]

Well tattoos are on the banned list so I get that. So its the old "God doesn't make mistakes, you're prefect as you are" argument?

Do I really need to use up my time poking the enormous holes in that line of thinking?

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Well tattoos are on the banned list so I get that. So its the old "God doesn't make mistakes, you're prefect as you are" argument?

Do I really need to use up my time poking the enormous holes in that line of thinking?

Umm no, I already told you. It's the "your body is literally the temple of God" line of thinking.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Umm no, I already told you. It's the "your body is literally the temple of God" line of thinking.

I've never heard that of Catholicism before. Do they also hate fat people?

Something tells me they take a harder line with gender reassignment than they do with cosmetic surgery, though it sounds like they shouldn't.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

A lot of assumptions there. "Hate"? I don't think they hate anyone. You're confusing them with the WBC.

[Waragainstsleep]

Persecute then. Whatever it is, its not pretty. Or very Christian.


All this disowning on technicalities is just nitpicking and dodging responsibility. Wherever you draw the line, you've got one bunch of people behaving in a dreadful manner to certain other groups within society because they aren't following the rules of Christianity properly, and another group because they are. Its time to get a better rulebook. Better rules, and easier for people to understand and follow.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

I've not encountered them "persecuting" anyone who has a sex change, either. How is it "dreadful" to simply disagree with another person's choices? Again, I think you're confusing tolerance with approval; I tolerate a lot of things that I flat-out disapprove of. If an adult male wants to get his twig and berries cut off, that's their decision, but in most instances I refuse to endorse the practice (and I sure as hell don't believe my tax dollars should go to paying for the procedure). They can feel free to start a Gofundme to cover the costs, there are more than enough people out there who will pony-up to help them.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

I've not encountered them "persecuting" anyone who has a sex change, either. How is it "dreadful" to simply disagree with another person's choices? Again, I think you're confusing tolerance with approval; I tolerate a lot of things that I flat-out disapprove of. If an adult male wants to get his twig and berries cut off, that's their decision, but in most instances I refuse to endorse the practice (and I sure as hell don't believe my tax dollars should go to paying for the procedure). They can feel free to start a Gofundme to cover the costs, there are more than enough people out there who will pony-up to help them.

Some would say campaigning to deny people these procedures constitutes persecution. The point made before was about barring hospitals from performing the procedures, it didn't mention who was footing the bill.

You're apparently fortunate enough to be comfortable in the body and gender you were born with. Not everyone is so lucky and as with most physiological circumstances, it doesn't discriminate based on ability to afford the fix. But I suppose there is little point trying to explain that to someone who doesn't want any of their tax dollars spent saving other people's lives let alone saving them from lifelong misery and discomfort.