Biblical America: the social movement that seeks to use the Bible as the
sole basis of all governance and social interaction. BARF:
a resource for all who work to monitor and counter the
Biblical America movement. No white
flags: Individually or socially, never give
in to, nor accomodate, this movement's extremist demands.
Also
from the creators of barf.org: |
|
|
Defining "love"
By Lauren Sabina Kneisly
Time: Tue, 06-Apr-1999 00:16:25 GMT
IP: 207.239.111.80
:OK, here is a name for you "Loved".
Nick: define 'love'. From my perspective I've seen
it three ways: 1. Loving us enough to forcibly
change our behaviors. Should that fail, then
loving us enough to extend 'biblical mercy' (which
tends to be 'biblical mercy' while stoning us to
death!) in our failure. 2. Christian 'love' as
codeword for stalking behaviors, sort of like
preying without consent, or 3. Love as
justification for imposition and atrocity. Love as
codeword for control.
:You are loved. Maybe your views aren't always
:loved but you are ALWAYS loved.
Love the sinner hate the sin? Come on! Love the
sinner into the kingdom use their sin as wedge
issue? Love the sinner to death lest the
bloodguiltiness of their sin contaminate the rest
of you? Most closely perhaps, control the
sinner/control the sin. (Mind you, not eradicate
the sin, the unwanted behaviors, queerness,
abortion, teen sex, etc continue, they're just
closeted or blackmarketed now. Should the sinner
be found out, I suppose some would give them the
ultimatum: change or we'll love you to death.)
Nick, in case you're wondering, I don't love you.
:Sorry, your assertion that I am responsible for
:the inquisition is utter nonsense.
No, but other religions are not 'truth' are they?
So anyone practicing something else is certainly
not living 'truth' are they? They are certainly
not your equal as you have the mythical 'one true
way'. As long as everyone else plays second class
citizen back-of-the-bus religion-wise, you open
the door to treating us as the less then
you. That's the neccessary groundwork for
inquisitions, dehumanization/verminization of
opponents.
:Were Christians responsible for the inquisition?
:Yes. Guess what...they lost.
Pardon me while I fall off my chair laughing!!!!
(If only it were funny...) You LOST?!? You LOST?!?
Oh gosh, christianity 'strayed from its roots', oh
gosh-oooops! Oh gosh, they annihilated entire
villages. Oh gosh, we didn't mean to...
Besides it's over right?
Tell that to Barnett Slepian's family.
:Anytime Christianity strays from it's roots it
:loses.
Tens of thousands of people die and the
perpetrators were just straying from their
roots?!!!!!
YOU lost?
Hello?
Reality calling.
It's not as if there are no modern day christian
atrocities that we can point to either,
right...? (try eastern Europe right about now.)
:When we, as Christians, forget that we are
:free-willed beings and try to force our religion
:on another we lose.
Nice rhetoric. Having their land, their wealth,
their dead bodies, that's losing to your
definition. Actually genocide as a christian
missionary tactic has a proud history. You've
already blown away your personal claim to have
respect for others free will.
:1) For a single woman to raise a child if she
:wishes? Yes, I think a single-woman can raise a
:child.
:
:2) For a lesbian couple to have and raise a
:child? Yes, I think a lesbian child can raise a
:child
:
:3) For a gay or Lesbian Couple to adopt a child?
:Yes, I think a gay or lesbian couple can adopt a
:child.
:
:4) For a single person to adopt a child
:regardless of their sezual orientation? Yes, I
:think a single person, regardless of their sexual
:orientation can adopt a child.
:
:Do I think any of those four situations are good
:for a child?
You don't think us queers make good parents, I'm
none too thrilled with SOME of the christian
parenting I see. I don't see christians barred by
law from adoption, though. It's an unequal playing
field, there can be no discussion.
:No, not when compared to having a child in a
:committed household with two heterosexual parents.
So we're back to your defintion of family as
universally desirable and best for a child.
:If that situation wasn't available I would think
:being loved and carefully raised by any :parent
:would be wonderful.
Hey, at least some of us might get runners up,
after all availble kids go to Nick's version of
perfect parents of course.
Fred, you asked the wrong question. Not can they
(although in many states Queers and others can't)
rather the question is does Nick think they
SHOULD, and will he work against the laws barring
us? If he does not think they SHOULD then is he
willing to use the government and legal system to
enforce his views, to such he has already shown
his predisposition.
:As for not praying for you, tough. I am a
:Christian, it's what I do. Not only am I praying
:for you but so are many others.
Well, then, there's my problem with christianity,
trodding over others consent systematically,
because damn it, it's just what they do.
I'd like to make it absolutely public that any
preyers against/for me are done against my will
and without my consent. You are violating me and I
ask you to stop; doing otherwise just makes my
point concerning christian 'love'. (Not that I
think you actually will, they never do.)
If a girl says no to having sex with you, do you
rape her? Think about it.
-Sabina
|
