- Feb 10, 2013
- 37,236
- 21,505
- 29
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Celibate
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Take a stand on political violence
- Thread starter Bradskii
- Start date
durangodawood
re Member
- Aug 28, 2007
- 27,909
- 19,554
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Seeker
- Marital Status
- Single
Upvote
0
- Jan 8, 2016
- 17,607
- 6,767
- 48
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Morally backward? I mean, was anyone injured or hurt by them?
Upvote
0
- Aug 19, 2018
- 23,601
- 16,167
- 72
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
Would you be fine in being told who you could or could not date?
Upvote
0
And dome fought vociferously for it. Yes yes we have heard your points ad nauseum. Its time to recognize that not all Christains believed that way. And certainly do not today. Some probably still do which is not following what Paul said. Refusing to acknowledge BOTH and only focusing on one makes one an ideologue and unworthy of being heard.
Upvote
0
- Dec 20, 2003
- 14,292
- 3,012
- Country
- Germany
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Charlie Kirk did not endorse this, preferring a culture of excellence over one of tribalism. He was married to a Catholic, which was the main reason white protestants looked down on white irish catholics. He did not believe in quotas and forcing equality at an unnatural pace at the expense of merit. That woke people equate that with racism shows the delusional roots of the left in the current context.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Dec 20, 2003
- 14,292
- 3,012
- Country
- Germany
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
The Christian culture of the USA has been steadily eroded since the sixties. Some of the insights that drove that attack were valid ones, like, for example, on the dignity of women and racial minorities, and some have just destabilized the country by the effort to call evil good. Abortion and the trans-sexual delusion are evils, as is the tendency to assert one's sexual identity over one's relationship with God. At the same time, the greed and selfish ambition of the rich are major factors destabilizing your nation and have nothing to do with Christianity. But Kirk was out there talking to people, and if you watch the YouTube videos, you can see he interacted with their ideas. Of course, bigots feel talked down to when your opinion does not change to their own. That does not make him someone who was talking down. He looks to me like a man with a plan to win the hearts and minds of young people to the truth. On most stuff, he was right. Not on the environment, COVID, or Ukraine, but most of the other stuff. The thing that got him killed was his assault on the madness of transgenderism, and on that, he was on the side of the angels.
Upvote
0
- Jan 8, 2016
- 17,607
- 6,767
- 48
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
By a pastor? They don't really have authority.
...And that's just it, we can pick and choose which pastors we like or don't like, and deal with them, just like we can choose to listen or not listen to people like Charlie Kirk.
But if nobody is calling for the actual the pain and suffering of others, physically, then we probably shouldn't get too excited. I know this will fall on deaf ears though, because the media, and writers in general, like to make things appear bigger than they are. And most people take the bait, and believe that calling a trans person, for example, their birth sex is a violation of some kind of right, and sometimes even place it at the same level as calls for physical violence.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Aug 19, 2018
- 23,601
- 16,167
- 72
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
That is exactly what he didn't do. On any long form debate he struggled because people had the time to question what he was saying.
The majority of his 'interactions' with students is him sitting on a chair with a couple of security guys attending either side, generally under a small marquee while some young kid was presented to him, standing, with a chance of a minute or less to present a question. Which I absolute guarantee was similar to umpteen questions he'd been asked over time. So he had a pat answer, would throw in a couple of biblical quotes, some figures that no-one could check and then ask an immediate question back without giving any opportunity for even a cursory investigation of the matter raised.
Interaction? The word must mean something different to you. 'Granted an audience' would be more like it.
Upvote
0
- Aug 19, 2018
- 23,601
- 16,167
- 72
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
So if someone is abusing their wife, controlling her life, dictating what she can.and can't do, controlling where she goes and when and who she meets without physically harming her then we shouldn't be concerned.
If an adult had a problem as regards their gender then it's literally nothing whatsoever to do with you. As you say, it doesn't harm you. So just move on, thanks very much.
Upvote
0
- Jan 8, 2016
- 17,607
- 6,767
- 48
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Correct. Assuming he or she is free to stay or leave that situation without physical repercussion, in which case, the violent party should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
You're right, it has nothing to do with me, but it also has nothing to do with other left-leaning non-trans people who argue about the use of pronouns. When they speak up, and make a fuss, it involves everyone then.
Upvote
0
Jerry N.
Well-Known Member
- Sep 25, 2024
- 791
- 284
- Country
- Poland
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Messianic
- Marital Status
- Married
I might add that trans-people should not have anything to do with children, and nobody should be encouraged to be transitioned, particularly under 18 or 21. Homosexual acts should not be taught to children.
Upvote
0
PloverWing
Episcopalian
- May 5, 2012
- 5,245
- 6,251
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
Just to make sure this doesn't stand unchallenged, I'll voice the standard objection. Trans and gay people do not pose a danger to children merely by virtue of their trans/gay status. I understand if your church does not permit trans or gay members; that's a common policy that many churches follow. But please do not slander their character.
Upvote
0
Jerry N.
Well-Known Member
- Sep 25, 2024
- 791
- 284
- Country
- Poland
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Messianic
- Marital Status
- Married
It is not meant to be a slander of their character as such, and I know homosexuals that can be trusted with children. Personally, I think that trans-people are less than mentally stable, like people who express it in other ways. It is more like “town characters.” They might be harmless, but a wise parent will teach their children to avoid contact with them. Children should not be taught to hate them in any way, but children should be shielded until they are mature enough to start to understand them. They should keep purity of thought as long as possible. It is no different than rating movies for certain ages.
Upvote
0
partinobodycular
Well-Known Member
- Jun 8, 2021
- 2,642
- 1,054
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Single
Okay, I'm just gonna throw this out there... I don't have a problem with political violence. In the realm of political discourse people have a right to express themselves, and that expression exists on a spectrum from benevolent to violent. I understand the idea that there need to be boundaries, but I don't see why.
Consider the aforementioned abused wife:
Politics is specifically about exercising control over the behavior of others, just as the husband does in the above scenario. But with all due respect to @Landon Caeli's response, the governed are often left to accept that control with little or no recourse. In which case the governed have the right to raise the level of social discourse beyond what would otherwise be generally accepted social norms. When or if that discourse rises to the level of violence isn't something that can be regulated away... it's the right of the abused to oppose their abuser.
If you hadn't noticed... people are crazy. They're not always going to respond as passively as you want them to and I have absolutely no problem with that. In the end, people have a right to be people, whether we like it or not.
Consider the aforementioned abused wife:
Politics is specifically about exercising control over the behavior of others, just as the husband does in the above scenario. But with all due respect to @Landon Caeli's response, the governed are often left to accept that control with little or no recourse. In which case the governed have the right to raise the level of social discourse beyond what would otherwise be generally accepted social norms. When or if that discourse rises to the level of violence isn't something that can be regulated away... it's the right of the abused to oppose their abuser.
If you hadn't noticed... people are crazy. They're not always going to respond as passively as you want them to and I have absolutely no problem with that. In the end, people have a right to be people, whether we like it or not.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Aug 19, 2018
- 23,601
- 16,167
- 72
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
The Barbarian
Crabby Old White Guy
- Apr 3, 2003
- 29,947
- 13,404
- 78
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Trump's own FBI director admitted that the greatest domestic terrorist threat was right-wing terrorism.
Upvote
0
- Aug 19, 2018
- 23,601
- 16,167
- 72
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
Knowing that it's going to be a problem and saying that it's acceptable are two entirely different things. If you can't see that 'Don't shoot people with whom you disagree' is a reasonable boundary then I'm at a loss...
We're all controlled by rules and regulations and laws. But we accept that as necessary in order to live in a world where people can't do everything that they want. It's a social contract to which we all agree. Well, almost all. The government says I can't drive my car at 200kph but I can drive it where I want. My wife is expert at some things, like finances, so she controls the money and tells me if we can afford to build a deck. But I'll tell her how big it can be and how it's going to be built. That's not the scenario I was talking about - wherea man (generally) controls all aspects of his wife's life. She can't make any decisions at all. She's not allowed.
So if someone breaks into your home and assaults your wife..?
Upvote
0
partinobodycular
Well-Known Member
- Jun 8, 2021
- 2,642
- 1,054
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Single
Come on @Bradskii, you're better than that. That's like asking why I can't see that 'thou shalt not kill' is a reasonable boundary, even if I advocate for the right to kill in self defense. Of course thou shalt not kill is a reasonable boundary, but there are still circumstances in which people have the right to kill. One truth doesn't negate the other.
All that I'm contending is that the abused have the right to oppose their abuser. Certainly you don't find that to be unreasonable... do you?
Yes, we're all controlled by rules and regulations, and for the most part we accept that control with little dissension. But once you accept the premise that the abused have the right to oppose their abuser, then black and white suddenly becomes grey, and you're forced to accept the fact that while some wives will never confront their abusive husbands others will go above and beyond what society might deem to be appropriate. What seemed at first blush to be a reasonable stance to take, will unfortunately, and unavoidably have deleterious effects.
It's a dichotomy that we simply have to accept when we accept that life isn't perfect, and absolutes aren't absolute. Things will happen that we don't want to happen. Like allowing people to drink or own guns, you do so with the knowledge that innocent people are going to die. You don't want them to die, but you know that they will. It's the same with political violence. You're not advocating for it, but you're accepting it as a consequence of something that you do want. The right of the people to protest against their government.
So yeah, I don't have a problem with political violence, because I know from whence it comes.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
