We have no idea what their threshold of “tolerance” is. They seem to tolerate pedophiles. You ok with that?
“We are coming for your children”
- Thread starter BIGOSUFAN
- Start date
Of course not. That's wrong. As I said earlier in this very thread... you can't have consensual relations with someone unable to give consent.
Under your definition, sending your kids to church would be considered indoctrination.
Impossible to know. The people around me don’t shamelessly flaunt their sin as the lgbtqmnopwxyz community does.
Not their job to teach anyones kids anything.
And if they did and the kids grow up and still don't accept or approve of it they will be called Transphobes, Homophobes and Bigots. Then they will truly see who the intolerant and unkind ones really are.
And if they did and the kids grow up and still don't accept or approve of it they will be called Transphobes, Homophobes and Bigots. Then they will truly see who the intolerant and unkind ones really are.
How does adultery compare to homosexuality in terms of gods judgement? Do you trust someone who blatantly, even flagrantly, sins like described here? Do you trust them?
They are both wrong and i would condemn the actions of both. In fact, I caught my wife cheating on me 3 years ago and i booted her ass out. This was after i had just beat prostate cancer.
I think the disconnect between how tolerance toward homosexuality is treated amongst Christians vs. tolerance for other sins is that most homosexuals make the argument that it is not a sin. I’ve never know an adulterer to claim that adultery is not a sin. Tolerance for the latter is easier because it is not an attack on the traditional message of the Bible but merely a tolerance for the fallibility of man. Tolerance for the former, under the
conditions desired by homosexuals, requires a sacrifice of values.
Sin vs. sin there is no difference, but I believe the adulterer and the homosexual are asking for different brands of tolerance.
conditions desired by homosexuals, requires a sacrifice of values.
Sin vs. sin there is no difference, but I believe the adulterer and the homosexual are asking for different brands of tolerance.
All I'm asking for is to not discriminate against them. That's it.
Wh
I agree 100%, more just trying to address David’s point.
I agree 100%, more just trying to address David’s point.
How major is the homosexuality prohibition relative to adultery? As I see it adultery is top ten. Homosexuality is in line with prohibition of shellfish, mixed fabrics, etc.
Been a long time since I directly read the OT so I maybe misremembering.
The problem with this is that if a Christian tries to stand by their beliefs - like a cakemaker refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding - they are sued for discrimination and the Christian is discriminated against for standing by their beliefs.
Homosexuality is prohibited in the NT while eating shellfish is not so those two really aren’t the same. Jesus equates looking lustfully at a woman and adultery in the Sermon on the Mount. It’s about the heart not the action. I think scripture, at least NT scripture is clear that there really is no hierarchy of sin. All sin separates you from God ranking them is a human thing.
The requirement for Christians to love homosexuals is as strong as the requirement that homosexuals not to commit homosexual acts. Calling a sinful act permissible is in itself, sin. I believe the closest comparison to saying it’s not sinful to be gay is to say it’s not sinful to discriminate against a homosexual because they’re gay. I think most Christians would agree with this in principle but I’m not sure how well it’s practiced.
Is that why you people have left that baker alone? Oh he is still being targeted by the poor mistreated gay mafia?
That baker also won their suit to the supreme court and proved that the 'gay mafia' doesn't get to do that.
Sorry but I've got no tolerance for drag queen reading hour for toddlers at the public library.
So much so that you'd attempt to forbid it from even happening or just so much so that you'd not allow your children to attend?
I would ask that you please explain what you mean by “not discriminate.” What is it you consider to be discrimination? Take the baker, for example. Do you want him to be forced to bake the cake in the name of anti-discrimination?
Last edited:
You've done it. Must do a little NT reading. Was not aware that NT addressed homosexuality.
What kind of a sick f*ck would think that allowing drag queens to read to little kids is somehow a good thing or “normal”?
If you haven’t been following the story since the original case was settled please don’t comment.
I was thinking that same question. Like verbatim.
there are a few examples of those people on this board.
It's the LGQBT movement in an effort to normalize their behavior and bring their beliefs into the mainstream. Of course, any time a group wants control, they target the young people (the Hitler Youth was for that very purpose). Win over the thinking of the young today and you win over the thinking of adults tomorrow.
For them, it's not enough to be tolerated, Their thinking must be accepted as normal to legitimize their behavior. It's like the month dedicated to LGTBQ to legitimize their behavior. Just trying to force people to accept them as normal. Heck, they basically have two or three networks dedicated to their lifestyle. If you go to Netflix, there's a whole listing of movies dedicated to their lifestyle. Mainstream TV shows promote them (Two and Half Men was one show that quickly comes to mind).
Last edited:
That's not the question. Would you act to forbid it for others?
If it was occurring in a facility run with public tax dollars (school or library), absolutely I would.
I live in central Ohio (Columbus) and some local loons tried to do this in Newark, a sleepy town of 50,000 about thirty miles away. The backlash was immense and the “event” was cancelled: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.newarkadvocate.com/amp/1307042001
Would say a Bible study be okay in the library?
Here is where I believe you overstep. You don't get to prevent the free association of others.
Absolutely I would support a Bible study. The adaptation of Biblical values in society leads to a better society.
So does teaching tolerance and kindness.
I read that article and I think if they chose to press the issue that the pride group would prevail in court. I don't believe in the hecklers veto. Just as the leftist Berkley asses prevent conservative speakers on campus are wrong; so would you be for preventing the library event.
“Preventing” it by showing up and acting in an uncivil manner? No, I wouldn’t support that.
Same result. You prevented a legal and constutuonally protected free association of people in a public space.
You don't get to do that.
I have no problem preventing perverse displays that are destructive to kids.
Similar threads
