Ah. I guess Foxe’s Book of Martyrs isn’t about Catholic martyrs, then.
But I’ll bet you dollars to donut-holes that even in the 19th Century update, the Christians lauded as martyrs still do not qualify as “Fundamentalists,” as the term is used today.
Okay, let’s try a few more:
flowbark had this to say:
Well, I’m honestly not sure how to respond to this. I think I will simply safely say that when I say someone is being “anti-Christian”, I refer to the Bible’s definition of a Christian: someone who loves God with all his heart, soul, strength, and mind, and loves his neighbor as himself. Whatever “tag” you put on people like that, that is what a Christian is.
Freyer, I read your post and honestly don’t get your point. You mentioned Pat Robertson & co trying to influence elections, LDS/RCC trying to pass laws, and Bob Barr and the Wiccan controversy. So what is your point?
Esprix said:
Fair enough. As I said earlier in the thread, there are always one or two exceptions. If this were 20 years ago you’d say “Waltons” and “Little House”. But it’s 2 or 3 tiny white spots on an otherwise dirty shirt.
David B pointed out:
LOL! Well, you and me both. Did you see my comments on ER? I don’t see this as invalidating what I said earlier, but rather as an encouraging sign that things are finally starting to sloooowly change.
Cervaise said:
Well, I appreciate the way you said that. I actually agree. I really never intended to get into this discussion, but it somehow sprang up! I don’t expect you guys to even believe in Satan or my worldview, but since I was asked where I stood, I shared it.
Hope you enjoyed it and it made you think! I’d love to hear your review, good or bad.
super_head said:
We don’t know when the end of time will come. It could be tomorrow, could be 50 years, could be 1000 years. My job (and the job of my fellow believers) is to simply do what we know to do … raise a standard of righteousness and try to help those who want help to get into a healthy relationship with Christ. Who really knows, maybe God’s judgement can be postponed?
Okay, at this point I can’t see the rest of page 4. I’m on page 5 now, going chronologically …
Monty said:
Don’t assume that someone who claims Christianity is an actual Christian. I could claim to be an atheist and act like an idiot to make atheists look bad.
Uh, yup.
As for the rest of your post, I will not respond as I found it to be rude. Ben and Hastur, same for your posts that follow.
Ben, as for your later post giving six examples of what you call “Christians” attacking others … I will say the same I said to Monty: don’t assume someone’s a true Christian just because they claim to be one. Also, you gave no details or proof on any of the examples you gave (I obviously know about the homosexual who was beaten to death since it was national news). If you can provide links to articles on the web about the other 5 it would help me to comment further.
Czarcasm said:
GASP WE’RE BACK ON TOPIC!! Is that why I started this thread, really!?!?
Yeah it’s unfortunate. CTP made huge mistakes in the marketing of the film, unfortunately. It was the #1 selling video in the 4th quarter of 2000. It could have been in the top 10 of theatrical pics last fall if they’d just released and advertised it in the traditional way.
Ah, Icerigger, I will only ask one thing: where does the New Testement command that Christians stone Wiccans, or anyone for that matter?
DavidB said:
I genuinely, REEEEEALY wish I did have a stack of examples to give you. You’ve got to realize I didn’t make the claim with the intent to give you a zillion examples to back it up, but I understand your desire for it. It’s hundreds of little things I’ve seen and read for decades, but I’ve not kept a little file with clippings or anything.
In DoctorJ’s new thread, I did provide links to articles about Christians being attacked in various ways. As I am sitting here I’m actually getting an idea of where I might find some specific examples of what I’m talking about online. If I find it, I will post links here.
I disagree. When sexual standards began to decline in the 60s, it was very well known that it was Christianity that held up the standard in the good ole USA of sexual morality and purity. So they had to try to tear down Christianity and sort of try to get it “out of the way” so they could push their agenda of sexual so-called “freedom”.
It genuinely impresses me. I am sorry, but I don’t have hours on end to research things just to please you guys :). Hey at least I did post a few ACLJ links on the other post.
You really think the decline of sexual standards in America was a “simple change”? It had devastating effects: huge abortion and teen pregnency rates, the mainstreaming of porn, a growing divorce rate, AIDS, and too much more to count.
Freyr said:
No I’m not offended I think it’s kinda cute :).
Thanks for making my case better than I did :).
tracer said:
Thanks tracer. See, I haven’t ever seen a Stephen King movie so I would have never known that.
Gadarene said:
That’s great news! In all honesty, it’s encouraging for me to hear these reports. Maybe things really are taking a turn for the better.
Ptahlis said:
As flowbark later said, we would agree in 99.9% of the cases. In the few cases where they’ve made outright errors, they’ve fixed it within 24 hours.
Gadarene said:
Not ignored … just hadn’t gotten to them yet ;). I still stand by my statement that in the majority of cases, it’s Catholic Christians portrayed positively. But as you guys have pointed out, it’s not always the case.
Ah, pld, your post was pretty rude IMHO and I don’t particularly want to respond. If you want to make your case politely but firmly, I’d love to discuss it with you.
dil, sorry you didn’t like the movie. I’m surprised you didn’t like Kirk Cameron! I was initially unsure of how he’d do in the role, but IMHO he honestly did a great job. The main weak actors to me are some of the sidebar characters: Joshua Cotheran, the guy on the plane who wants to jump out, etc.
Satan, I read the article you linked to. You said:
WOW. What a story. I’ve never heard of anything like this happening ever before in my life! How awful. If it’s true, it’s a true indictment on the Christians that were involved. Jesus would have walked into the middle of them and said “Ye who is without sin cast the first stone”. As I’ve stated before in this thread, I don’t think you can just assume that someone claiming to be a Christian is one. I’m not saying these people weren’t, but they certainly opened themselves up to be suspected at the very least.
As for Christians going through similar treatment, yes I actually have heard similar awful tales, but again they are on the fringes of my mind from things I’ve read and seen years ago. I genuinely wish I could give you more specific examples. Either way, it’s awful. I’ll tell you what, if such a case has happened in recent years, it will probably be somewhere on the http://www.aclj.org website.
As for this story, do you have a more objective source for it? I’m not doubting it’s true, but just wanting something more concrete (this is, after all, the guy who said it happened to him!)
I think I’ll sum up my reaction with the words to a song by Keith Green, a Christian artist from the late 70s who died in a plane crash at age 28:
"Phonies have come
And wrong’g been done
Even killing in Jesus’ name
And if you’ve been burned
Here’s what I’ve learned
The Lord’s not the one to blame
For He’s just not religion
With steeples and bells
Or a salesman who will sell you
The things you just want to hear
For His love was such
That He suffered so much
To call some of us
Just to follow …"
tracer said:
How do you define so called “Fundamentalist” Christians?
ITR Champion said:
No prob, it was just a slip of the keys 
For the record, if you look closely you’ll see several Christians who didn’t like the movie at all, and several who at least don’t claim to be Christians who did.
flowbark, thanks for the Foxe links.
WHEW Caught up at last!!
FoG said:
And your point is what, exactly? As far as I’ve seen, nobody has disagreed with you that there is more sex in the media. What we have repeatedly pointed out (and you have apparently repeatedly ignored) is that this is not a direct attack on Christianity and is only taken as such by those who are looking for such attacks. In other words: YOU.
Regarding positive portrayals of Christianity on TV, you said:
:rolleyes: Again, we see that you can’t view anything in an objective light.
You ask for us to show you something that would prove your statements wrong. We show it. Do you accept that you were wrong? No! You somehow manage to twist it to show that you were right but that things are improving. Huh?!
Face facts: You were wrong.
But instead you claim to to a Christian, and … 
Regarding the portrayal of Christians on TV, you said:
Ya know, FoG, you’ve been around Great Debates long enough to know that you can’t simply go around making claims without being expected to back them up. I REEEEEEALY wish you had a stack of examples to give me, too. Or, better yet, admit that you didn’t know what the heck you were talking about.
Then perhaps you should reconsider your participation in Great Debates. I say this not as a moderator, but as a user. If you continue to stick around and continue to make claims, people like me will continue to ask you to back those claims up. If the best you can do is whine that you don’t have time to gather the evidence, then why are you here? Seriously.
**FriendofGod wrote:
Freyer, I read your post and honestly don’t get your point. You mentioned Pat Robertson & co trying to influence elections, LDS/RCC trying to pass laws, and Bob Barr and the Wiccan controversy. So what is your point?**
The point is that Fundamentalist Christians are doing the same thing that you accuse others of doing to them. That old “plank in your own eye” line for the NT come to mind?
Fundamentalist Christians are attempting to pass laws or influence the government to favor Christianity over other faiths. The LDS & RCC are passing laws that treat gays and lesbians in an unequal fashion from the rest of the population. Bob Barr et al. are using their positions in government to harass and intimidate Wiccans.
You accuse others of harassing/persecuting Christians and yet Fundamentalists are the ones doing the real persecution.
Btw, my name is spelt with only one E. It’s from Old Norse.
Old Norse?! What, are you one o’ them ev-il oppressive pagans?!
Boy, oh boy! Did I make a mistake!
**Freyr wrote:
The LDS & RCC are passing laws that treat gays and lesbians in an unequal fashion from the rest of the population.**
Hoo-boy! No, the LDS & RCC are NOT passing laws. But they ARE contributing significant financial contributions to the campaigns to get those laws passed, and they’re being very successful at it.
Just to clarify!
**DavidB wrote:
Old Norse?! What, are you one o’ them ev-il oppressive pagans?!**
Guilty as charged! I just got back from torching two churches, a synagogue and several orphanages. Next I’m planning on how to harass all the Christians at my work place. I’ll make sure all the offices have PAGAN/SATANIC conversion literature stuffed in various places.
Whoops, it’s 12:30PM… the perfect planetary alignment is coming up. I need to cast a spell to befuddle all the legislators at the Texas state capitol building so they’ll vote for the secular-humanist agenda we’re ramming down the throat of the good people of Texas!
FoG:
I do not assume that those who say they are Christians are Christians. I have about had it up to here with folks like you telling me, because I’m LDS, that I am not Christian and that you guys are. Guess what, pal, THE Bible DOES NOT DEFINE CHRISTIAN! It does, on the other hand, expressly prohibit the crap you bigots pull.
What I find to be inexcusably rude is your asinine assertion that Christians in the United States of America today are persecuted and your, and your pals’, complete intolerance of those who do not believe as you do.
Drat. I left out after the bit about assumption above, “If osmeone says they’re Christian, then they are Christian. They may not be particularly good ones, as you evidence so well, but they are certainly Christians.”
Has anyone else noticed that this thread has nearly 5,000 views? Apparently it’s imporrtant to the lurkers.
(Now watch the “View Count” go up as people click on it to drive it up past 5,000!)
Hey Freyr? What time is the torching tonight? I left my “Pagan Political Agenda” in my other coat…
Gee, what a shock. FoGo appoints himself head of the Who Is A True Christian Committee and says that people who do the things we describe probably are not. >>>yawn<<< Get a new shtick.
So when is the joint march between the Fundies and the gays against persecution going to take place? I’d really like to see it.
DavidB said:
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you missed this. To repeat myself:
Next, you said:
You know, maybe you’re showing me that I shouldn’t give you the benefit of the doubt. You are kind of exposing yourself as someone who wants to “win the argument” regardless of reality and facts. You point out a few examples of Christians being portrayed in a positive light, and then try to make that equal “proving” that Christians have not been portrayed in a negative light for 30+ years in the mass media? That is genuinely laughable. You’re usually better than that.
As for “admitting I’m wrong”, in this case I couldn’t look myself in the mirror if I said it wasn’t true. I’ve seen it with my own eyes for the past 30 years! I’d be lying if I said differently. Believe me, I wish things had been different. And besides David, you know me better. Remember Christianity & Love? Remember how every third post I was correcting a misstatement I had made? I’ll admit I’m wrong if I am indeed wrong. Don’t expect me to back down on such flimsy evidence. In fact …
Well I’ll tell you what. Since you are now making the claim that Christians have not been unfairly portrayed in the mass media for 30+ years, why don’t you try to back that up. Do several hours a day of research for several months, and see what you come up with. Do the statistical analysis. Prove me wrong, since you seem to have more time than I do.
David, I never intended to “prove” this to you or anyone. Somehow it came up in this thread (I can’t even recall how) and I made a comment that you and others jumped on and asked me to back up. All I can go by is what I’ve seen for the past 30+ years. You don’t have to believe me. I’m not asking you to. I’ve not done statistical research, I’ve just seen it for 30+ years. Again, I’ve seen a few encouraging signs in the past 3 - 4 years that things might be sloooooooowly turning around, similar to the types of things you mentioned. I hope that in 5 years, Christians will be portrayed postively the balance of the time. We will see.
Just as a reminder, I started this thread to encourage people to see a movie that I thought might change their lives. NOT to start a debate over this issue.
I don’t mind being asked to back things up. I DO mind you assuming I’m wrong just because I’ve not done extensive research to back every claim I make. I don’t expect you to believe something just because I believe it (I’m sure you’re breathing a huge sigh of relief ;)). If I don’t back it up to your satisfaction, just file it away as, “Ok, FoG believes that for some reason, but I haven’t seen proof so I’m reserving judgment”. Don’t jump on this “A HA! You don’t have any proof so you must be wrooooooong!” bandwagon. It’s silly!
Freyr said:
Well, to me you’re talking about 3 very different types of situations, and I must confess to not knowing all the facts about all 3 cases so it’s hard to comment.
Pat Robertson trying to influence elections … is that any different at all from Jesse Jackson doing the same? Doesn’t everybody on every side of the political spectrum try to influence the election so the person you want to win will win? What’s the persecution?
As for LDS/RCC contributing to the passing of laws to make gays/lesbians “unequal” – howso? I don’t know of any specifics, but I know some Christian groups have fought the notion of gays having some kind of “special” rights. Do you equate this with them having “unequal” rights? I think we just have a difference of view here, not persecution.
As for Bob Barr … if the story you told is true, that’s the closest you’ve come to describing some form of persecution. But why do you assume Bob Barr is a Christian?
Monty, usually I do not respond to posts like this, but I do have one thing to say to you: I am sorry that some believers have hurt you with their words. They might have meant well, but they did not represent Christ. I hope for your own benefit that you will be able to forgive their sins against you.
jab1 pointed out:
Yeah! That blew me away. Obviously, I’m praying that people took the OP to heart and saw the movie with an open heart, whether in theatres or on video. If there’s anyone still reading that did this, regardless of what you thought of the acting, script, etc … I hope you will consider seriously the message of the movie. In fact, I’d like to bring back key quotes from the movie as a reminder, and I’d like to point out that they apply to all of us reading this:
Opening Line: “What does it matter what we think we know? In the end there’s no denying the truth”.
Bruce to Buck: “What, you think you’re coming here is an accident? You can feel Him, can’t you? You can feel God tugging at your heart. Don’t ignore Him Buck.”
Really? Did you ever admit that your false prophecies come from Satan? Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t ever remember you saying that the words which came out of your keyboard originated with the devil, even when I quoted the relevant Scriptures to prove it to you.
-Ben
**
As has already been pointed out, the original context of that quote made it quite clear what I meant. To wit:
**
Exactly. You just like fantasising about it, which is why you folks get off so much on lying fundie porn like She Said Yes. That was the entire point of my whole argument, so why are you twisting my words around?
**
It would be physically dangerous for me to roll my eyes as much as this deserves. You state that “in this day and age” a Christian should fear persecution more than a Wiccan. I point out that “in this day and age” George of the Bungle has said that Wicca is not a religion and does not deserve First Amendment protection. I ask you to provide an example of persecution which equals that, and you give me a “centuries”-old book?
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: OW! MY EYE!
**
Quotes, please? Where does the HM state that the destruction of Christianity is their goal?
So if the Book of Revelation ends with “do not add to this Scripture,” that applies to the whole Bible?
Could you explain this in more detail? Before the NT canon was established, did it apply to the Gospels, or just to the Book of Revelation? How did people know what not to add to, back before the books of the NT were collected together into one volume?
-Ben
FoG said:
That was very weird, actually, because not an hour before that my GF and I had been discussing not only this thread, but also parents who refuse to immunize their kids.
Who is “they”? Is “they” us?
Way back when, Polycarp made the point that he didn’t think adolescent or premarital sex was that much more common than it was in the 50s–it’s just that people are more open about it these days, so it seems that way. Do you agree? Do you think this is a good thing, or should we return to the double-standard approach?
I would again recommend Stephanie Coontz’s book.
(to David B)
Yep, that’s David B, all right–famous for making weak arguments with no evidence to back them up.
Seriously, David B is the most consistently no-BS guy I’ve ever run across in any medium. He either puts up or he shuts up, and he expects the same of anyone who gets in the ring with him.
Because he says he is a Christian, because a lot of other people who claim to be Christians support him, and because you rarely see anyone claiming to be a fundamentalist Christian going out of his way to denounce such actions.
More tomorrow…must sleep…
Dr. J
Yo. I’m new to the board.
FoG: “Christians are being persecuted!!!”
Others: “Think YOU have it tough? Wiccans and atheists are being persecuted MORE!”
FoG: “Here is an example of where a Christian was ostracized/thrown in jail/killed/castrated for his beliefs.”
Others: “No! Here are MORE examples than that of a Wiccan/agnostic/secular-humanist being forced to eat his own toenails by Fundies for HIS beliefs.”
FoG: “Here is an example of anti-Christian ideas infiltrating the media.”
Others: “Here is an example of Fundamentalist dogma infiltrating the government!”
FoG: “Everyone is out to get ME!”
Others: “No! ME!”
A few points on the matter:
You guys are ALL RIGHT! Just because one group is being “persecuted” doesn’t mean that the opposite view is not.
The very nature of the SDMB idea of having to back up ideas is, by nature, non-conducive to Christianity, or any other faith. It’s FAITH for God’s sake! 
Yes, I have read the book series through the third one. Pretty good read, though the constant in-your-face blatant Bible-thumping gets quite annoying after a while. Haven’t seen the movie, and don’t intend to. Books are (almost) always better than the movie they spawn. (2001: A Space Odyssey being the exception.)
Not all aspects of “morality” have declined in the past few decades. Child-abuse has gone down. Racism/sexism has CERTAINLY declined since the '50s. We are more understanding of those with mental illness. It all depends on what aspect of morality you look at.
For the record, I am a Christian through and through. I am the chaplain of my high-school junior class, in fact. However, I am also a firm advocate of SOCAS. Strange, eh?
Well, DB, you might be in luck. I just found out there is indeed a website for the American Family Association, a Christian “watchdog” organization that’s been around for decades. My mom subscribed to their newsletter back in the 80s and early 90s (come to think of it she still might).
Anyway, one of the things I remember was that in every monthly issue, they would have a 2 - 4 page section that did nothing but document incidents on television where Christians were mocked or portrayed in a negative light, or where Christian-based morality was mocked and belittled. Again it was several pages each month for years.
I remember when I first read it I was so glad someone was actually taking the time to record the stuff down! And now when we were posting back and forth today, it suddenly hit me that the AFA has done the work you wanted me to do for the past two decades ;).
So anyway, I went to their website and browsed around a little … so far I haven’t found any archives, but I’ll keep looking around. If anything I might see if they have statistics or summary pamphlets or anything that might help, since you seem so passionate about seeing the evidence for my claims. The addy is http://www.afa.net by the way.
So I just might be able to hand you what you’re looking for on a silver platter DB. I’ll be quite interested to see if it is satisfactory to you in any way shape or form.
::Grinding teeth:: You’ve said this (that TV has a general and obvious bias against Christianity) several times and it’s driving me crazy! Don’t you see that almost everyone on TV is portrayed as Christian? How can you fail to realize that? Didn’t you ever notice that every TV household has a Christmas tree? Oh, once in a while, TV will throw out a Jew or a Jewish family, but they’re damn rare. And even rarer is to see an Atheist, or a Hindu, or a Muslim or anything but a Christian presented in any light at all. Everybody but Christians is just absent – and if a person of a different faith (or no faith at all) is presented, it is with great fanfare. Christians don’t need special Christian TV shows for the same reason that healthy people don’t need support groups! Hear me now – Christianity is the norm on US TV! I could come up with specific examples easily enough if you wish – but I’m already hijacking a previously hijacked thread. I just couldn’t stand it anymore.
Jess – choking on exclamation points, not to mention all the italics
FoG: You let me know when you find whatever you expect to find on that website. Until then, let’s review a small bit of what you’ve said recently (some has already been addressed by others) :
Buzzz! Sorry, wrong answer. Johnny, tell him what he’s lost.
Oh, wait, this isn’t a gameshow. It’s just a debate where FoG doesn’t understand what’s involved.
You made the claim that Christians have been unfairly portrayed. It is therefore up to you to back up that claim. You cannot expect me to somehow provide evidence for the negative – especially when every example I might give you will be taken by you as an “exception” or used to show that “things are getting better.”
You made the claim, you back it up. It’s that simple. But nice attempt to shift the burden.
Good. But then why even bring it up in a forum called “Great Debates” if you didn’t expect to be called on it?
I’ll repeat the question I posed before, that you skirted around and never answered.
Clearly you cannot believe that this sort of behavior did not exist before it was shown on TV. People have engaged in this sort of behavior ever since we <first came to being, whether this means “spread across Caanan” or “came out of the trees” to the reader>.
My question is this: Should these stories not be told? Should this behavior not be shown? Should art portray us as we want to be or as we are?
I know the fundie view is that “this behavior should not be shown to be okay.” Unfortunately, that’s an opinion. Divorce, for example, is frequently quoted as a social ill, something social critics would like to see reduced or eliminated. Divorced people were rare to the point of extinction on television until the mid-to-late 60’s. This, you might say, is an example, that TV shouldn’t be showing divorce, and what’s more, shouldn’t be showing it as a positive thing.
Well, sometimes it can be a positive thing. My mother married a selfish, abusive man. It took her twelve years to figure out she was harming herself by staying with him. She divorced him and took my brother and me with her. Best thing that ever happened to her, and to us.
Many divorces are acrimonious and negative. Many are also a positive step to a healthier life, a means of addressing a simple mistake by all involved. If you think for a moment, you will quickly come up with examples of both approaches.
So, I repeat: Should our media show us as we wish ourselves to be, or as we are?