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.
So what are you telling me. You refuse not to follow the OP and that your going to continue your LGBTI commentary despite my efforts to keep you and others on the OP. I just don't get what's so tough about respecting this OP. If homosexuality and liberalism had you riled up, can't you find another thread to contribute to?
If homosexuality and liberalism had you riled up, can't you find another thread to contribute to?
If this is your way of saying your going to respect the OP.... Then thank you. Now come on... I'm sure you have thoughts about the strategies used by religions.... Good or not goodYou are way of base on who did the riling....worse yet, you know that was not true.
If your saying others are riling I agree and have said so to several and more generally, to stay with the OPYou are way of base on who did the riling....worse yet, you know that was not true.
If this is your way of saying your going to respect the OP.... Then thank you. Now come on... I'm sure you have thoughts about the strategies used by religions.... Good or not good
Firstly, I went to some trouble to NOT turn this into a debate about homosexuality/transgenderism.
But you have done your level best to tell me all the reasons why you should ignore the OP and voice the very thing this OP is NOT about.
As I've mentioned frequently here - This OP is about how religious groups can better sell their message - You chose to ignore that in favour of grabbing a soapbox to, yet again, decry homosexuality.
Don't get me wrong, your view is fair enough - this is a christian site - but there's many threads where you can do that. The specific example provided was purely to provide a background example of how things turned out badly for all concerned - was there a better way.
So please stick to the OP - Im not going to allow you or anyone else to go off topic unchallenged and turn this into a sexual or political debate.
This story is about a group of Australian conservatives (I do not know if they have a religious persuasion or not) who decided to go to a library event where a drag queen was reading a story to children.
Secondly - You google the net in attempt to make a correlation between Transgenerism and paedophilia...
...and cited an example where a symbol was "liked" on social media.
I'm sure youre intelligent enough to know your logic is false - If you were ethical and consistent in your argument, you would have found that more then 10000 percent greater numbers of straight/non-trans men who were pedophiles...
...using your logic you'd say all pastors are paedophiles...
...or all men are paedophiles.
...A drag Queen reading to kids = paedophile. Thats a very unethical argument - and you know it.
...why not return to the OP and argue - was there a better way to achieve the group's ends...
...is blockade/protest indeed a right way to go about things in some circumstances.
what was your motive for doing this?Not true. I cited specific examples of where Drag Queens performing Drag Queen Story Time were actually discovered to have criminal records which included pedophilia.
what was your motive for doing this?
I'm sure Zoii just guessed but she has the right of it10,000 percent. Really? I suppose you can provide a citation for that.
Zoii didn't say you did. what she said was "Using your logic" so it is your defense that is false[/quote][/QUOTE]I made no such claim. Your statement is false.
I made no such claim. Your statement is false.
I made no such argument. Your statement is false.
what a load of self righteous garbageBecause there are none so blind as those who will not see.
But drag queens are supposed to be doormats?Because Christians are not tasked to be doormats submissively accepting whatever behavior someone chooses to flaunt in their collective face.
if i had to choose between my own children meeting Diamond or meeting you at the library - it would be an easy choice. Just like i would not choose for them to meet someone who tries to associate black people with rape.Because as sad as the young man's death is, no evidence exist his suicide was directly related to the protest of Diamond Good-Rim.
Because Diamond Good-Rim. Are you kidding me?
an apology to the kids for bad and rude behavior is bowing and scraping?Because in this instance neither Christians nor "the Religious," whoever the OP may have meant by employing that phrase, have any need to bow and scrape and genuflect because someone may have hurt someone's feelings.
you mean the disruptive and hateful attack of a children's programBecause the question of what could "the religious" have done differently in this situation is by default an assertion "the religious" are to blame for whatever slight the writer of the OP article is wailing about.
disrupting a children's reading event makes you a hero?
If Christians are not willing to defend Christian values, what good are they.
As I've mentioned frequently here - This OP is about how religious groups can better sell their message -
I find this such a strange question. I don't see "defending" Christian values...as something that should be a priority for Christians at all.
...by protesting, or attacking people who hold different values to me, and behave accordingly...
The world will be the world; let it.
We don't have to try to make non-Christians conform to our values...
Our priority should be the mission of God, which is not about trying to force others to conform to a standard of behavior, but about proclaiming the good news of the kingdom.
Why do we think we have to "defend" Christian values?
Ask the logical question. If the Temple members were truly concerned with religious freedom, why single out Christians
If Christians are not willing to defend Christian values, what good are they.
I find this such a strange question. I don't see "defending" Christian values (by protesting, or attacking people who hold different values to me, and behave accordingly) as something that should be a priority for Christians at all.
Then why bother to profess Christianity? If you do not perceive Christian values as worth defending when they come under assault, then what is the value of practicing them?
If, whenever you are challenged by anyone promoting an agenda at odds with your values, you simply fold under the pressure quite soon no one will take you seriously.
Ask the logical question. If the Temple members were truly concerned with religious freedom, why single out Christians for mockery and disdain?
In response to such are Christians simply to remain mute, meekly stare at the ground as they walk by, refuse to challenge the issue in fear they might, heaven forbid, offend someone over at the Satanic Temple of Chicago?
Christians are not allowed to protest?
I have to wonder. If you had lived in Chicago during the time that statue was erected, would you have taken your children down to see it because...inclusion? Diversity? We must honor other people's beliefs regardless of how destructive they may be? If you knew someone in your neighborhood embraced the values associated with drunken orgies, would merrily accept an invitation to their next party?
Your choice of language is telling. Who said anything about making anyone conform to Christian values?
The bottom line is this. Because there is a war going on, and it isn't any of the ones discussed in the daily news.
The value of practicing Christian values is living a life of integrity, one which is life-giving, loving, and joyful.
Here's the thing, though; I don't see other people - non-Christians - living their lives not in accordance with my values as an "assault" on my values. I believe they deserve the same space to live their values with integrity as I would claim for myself.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?