The Mainstream Media Pushing "Trans" Delusion

[Hvizsgyak]

That's surprising, because CF certainly isn't an ardent defender of free speech. Need I remind you.

Non-Christians

• Keep in mind that this IS a Christian website and as such CF reserves the right to choose what content is appropriate.
• All discussions with the intent of belittling or mocking Christians or Christianity will be promptly removed.
• All discussions belittling Christians by calling them mentally inferior, ignorant, bigoted, etc. will be promptly removed.
• All discussions blaspheming the Christian God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit will be promptly removed.

I know from experience just how easy it is to offend some people on this site, and I've got the suspensions and reprimands to prove it.

The rules work for everyone here. I'm a Christian and I've broken those rules too by saying things that were derogatory to another poster. But they are here to let all discussions go more smoothly. I was wrong for saying what I said. So, you can state how you feel about Christians here just don't overdo it. Alot of people here misunderstand these rules. We love spreading the Gospel to those who do not know it.

I have come to understand somewhat about not using harsh words on other forums or websites. There are sensitive people who would get upset terribly. And I do not wat to hurt anybody. But we do need public forum where certain discussions can take place. And if the reporting media site is a news outlet then it should be a public forum where everybody gets to say what they want to say. If it is like a knitting forum or website then discussions about the days events should have rules applied to the comments. But when you get news media outlets like The Nation, The Hill or The Independent reporting on the days events then all should be allowed to contribute to the discussion.

As for the last bullet, yah, that is absolutely true. You may not agree with people here at the Christian Forum and you may allude to us being ignorant or mentally deranged but we will not tolerate anyone saying anything negative about God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit). Go to some other website if you feel the need to do that.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

But aren't they the first ones to scream "censoring" when filthy trash books are taken out of elementary school libraries? Thank you for reminding me who we are dealing with here .

Usually, I don't listen to much of what Ken Ham says. I appreciate that he's a fellow Christian, but my approach to the Christian faith comes by way of another epistemological avenue than his.

However, recently, Ken Ham presented the following epistemological suggestions, and they have impact on ethical the discourse and discussion traditional Christians may have from time to time with individuals who identify as being within the LGBTQ movement.

Do you think Ken Ham is right? Or do you think he's dead wrong about his application of certain Foundational principles (as he defines them) in the public discourse we all may have with LGBTQ viewpoints?

 

[essentialsaltes]

So someone isn’t allowed to have an opinion or think it’s unnatural?

Nobody's saying so.

So, people should be forced to muzzle themselves

Nobody's saying so, but websites can determine what they want to 'publish' based on its editorial decisions. They will muzzle you if they want, as is their right.

The government is forbidden from curtailing your free speech, and it is also forbidden from altering editorial decisions.

 

[partinobodycular]

But because we sin, that doesn't mean throw the Ten Commandments out because we fall short.

Personal Opinion: The Ten Commandments aren't worth the stone that they were purportedly carved on.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Usually, I don't listen to much of what Ken Ham says. I appreciate that he's a fellow Christian, but my approach to the Christian faith comes by way of another epistemological avenue than his.

However, recently, Ken Ham presented the following epistemological suggestions, and they have impact on ethical the discourse and discussion traditional Christians may have from time to time with individuals who identify as being within the LGBTQ movement.

Do you think Ken Ham is right? Or do you think he's dead wrong about his application of certain Foundational principles (as he defines them) in the public discourse we all may have with LGBTQ viewpoints?

For a moment I thought he was going to say something sympathetic, but it was just another instance of Ken Ham telling us that if you don't use a Hammist interpretation of the opening chapters of Genesis then you won't end up with a Hammist world view. There are tons of Christians that don't ascribe to Hammism but still end up in basically the same place on issues and attitudes related to LGBT people.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

MSN

I don't understand these online news feeds that present controversial subjects as their article topics and then do not allow people to comment on the article unless it is in support of the controversial article. Sensible responses need not apply against these articles, the comment usually doesn't get posted. But I tried with what I thought was a sensible and polite response:

"You got that right! A long while back, yes there may have been one or two trans people in each of our communities but, they did their whole "trans" thing and the rest of the world was allowed to ignore it and not have to play along with their delusions.

Now, the online news medias have to throw it in our face 24/7 as if the more they present the subject the more "enlighten" we'll become and accept the false trans lifestyle. I can tell you, it'll never happen even in a million years - because it is so unnatural.

I think that some of the people who report for these online news medias are even more delusional than the person who acts trans. Maybe, psychiatrist need to take a closer look at those people."


So, after trying to post the above response, I got the message, "This comment doesn't meet the community guidelines; please try another one." Anybody see anything repulsive, mean, hateful in what I wrote? A far as I can tell there is nothing bad about this response. So, I thought we could have a better discussion here on the subject. Here, everybody can say what they want (to a certain degree).

Interesting you think that's a "sensible and polite" response.

Replace "trans" with "Trumper" or "Republican" or "Christian nationalist" or "Conservative right" in your response and then direct it at you, something tells me you wouldn't have a hard time seeing that the comment is neither sensible or polite.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

For a moment I thought he was going to say something sympathetic, but it was just another instance of Ken Ham telling us that if you don't use a Hammist interpretation of the opening chapters of Genesis then you won't end up with a Hammist world view. There are tons of Christians that don't ascribe to Hammism but still end up in basically the same place on issues and attitudes related to LGBT people.

That's true.

 

[RileyG]

Nobody's saying so.


Nobody's saying so, but websites can determine what they want to 'publish' based on its editorial decisions. They will muzzle you if they want, as is their right.

The government is forbidden from curtailing your free speech, and it is also forbidden from altering editorial decisions.

Yup. I don’t disagree.

 

[RileyG]

Tolerance of intolerance is a problematic subject.

Intolerance, eh? Not agreeing with an ideology isn’t “intolerance.”

 

[Nithavela]

Intolerance, eh? Not agreeing with an ideology isn’t “intolerance.”

Pretty sure I'd get into trouble if I started to vocally disagree with the christian ideology on this forum.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Intolerance, eh? Not agreeing with an ideology isn’t “intolerance.”

Not agreeing with an ideology can be intolerance depending on why they disagree. Legislating that disagreement to prevent equal access to rights, regardless of the reasons behind the disagreement, is most certainly intolerance.

 

[RileyG]

Not agreeing with an ideology can be intolerance depending on why they disagree. Legislating that disagreement to prevent equal access to rights, regardless of the reasons behind the disagreement, is most certainly intolerance.

Rights for what? Right to pretend?

I don’t care what adults do. That’s their choice. Just leave minors out of extreme gender ideology.

 

[RileyG]

Pretty sure I'd get into trouble if I started to vocally disagree with the christian ideology on this forum.

Because this is a Christian forum. That’s why.

 

[RileyG]

Interesting you think that's a "sensible and polite" response.

Replace "trans" with "Trumper" or "Republican" or "Christian nationalist" or "Conservative right" in your response and then direct it at you, something tells me you wouldn't have a hard time seeing that the comment is neither sensible or polite.

Saying someone has a mental illness and/or disorder is impolite? Anxiety and depression are mental illnesses. Is it impolite if I say I know people who suffer from them?

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Rights for what? Right to pretend?

I don’t care what adults do. That’s their choice. Just leave minors out of extreme gender ideology.

Literally nobody is talking about minors.

 

[RileyG]

Literally nobody is talking about minors.

I disagree. Many minors are being recruited by trans activits into believing something they aren't. Just look at drag queen story hour, or the non binary nonsense. I can go on and on. It's all part of the trans agenda.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I disagree. Many minors are being recruited by trans activits into believing something they aren't. Just look at drag queen story hour, or the non binary nonsense. I can go on and on. It's all part of the trans agenda.

Nobody's being recruited. Stop with the lies.

 

[RileyG]

Nobody's being recruited. Stop with the lies.

I'm not lying. I am only speaking from my observations.

Millionth time, I don't CARE what ADULTS do, just leave MINORS alone. Period.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Saying someone has a mental illness and/or disorder is impolite? Anxiety and depression are mental illnesses. Is it impolite if I say I know people who suffer from them?

Yes, if somebody had a real mental disorder and you call it out, it is very rude. It’s even ruder if you tell them they have a disorder they don’t have. It’s the height of rudeness to say:

“A long while back, yes there may have been one or two people with depression people in each of our communities but, they did their whole "being depressed" thing and the rest of the world was allowed to ignore it and not have to play along with their delusions.

Now, the online news medias have to throw it in our face 24/7 as if the more they present the subject the more "enlighten" we'll become and accept the false depressive lifestyle. I can tell you, it'll never happen even in a million years - because it is so unnatural.

I think that some of the people who report for these online news medias are even more delusional than the person who acts depressed. Maybe, psychiatrist need to take a closer look at those people.”

And in the case of trans people, where there is no delusion or mental illness, simply your rejection of their state of being, to assign them a mental illness they don’t have and then accuse them of going after minors? That is Super Bowl-champion tier rudeness.

 

[RileyG]

Yes, if somebody had a real mental disorder and you call it out, it is very rude. It’s even ruder if you tell them they have a disorder they don’t have. It’s the height of rudeness to say:

“A long while back, yes there may have been one or two people with depression people in each of our communities but, they did their whole "being depressed" thing and the rest of the world was allowed to ignore it and not have to play along with their delusions.

Now, the online news medias have to throw it in our face 24/7 as if the more they present the subject the more "enlighten" we'll become and accept the false depressive lifestyle. I can tell you, it'll never happen even in a million years - because it is so unnatural.

I think that some of the people who report for these online news medias are even more delusional than the person who acts depressed. Maybe, psychiatrist need to take a closer look at those people.”

And in the case of trans people, where there is no delusion or mental illness, simply your rejection of their state of being, to assign them a mental illness they don’t have and then accuse them of going after minors? That is Super Bowl-champion tier rudeness.

So we should validate their delusion instead?

Again. If they weren't in our faces 24/7, most people wouldn't care.

All of a sudden it's everywhere.

Makes me wonder...hmmm....