What are your thoughts on this?

[ozso]

Well, seeing as non-hetero/non-cis people aren't an organization.

-CryptoLutheran

So what's up with the acronyms and symbols and flags etc?

 

[childeye 2]

Who's condemning anyone? I havent.

Okay, but what about condemning ourselves when we judge? The scripture I gave showed that we condemn ourselves when we judge others because we do the same things.

2 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.

The gay cheerleaders always try to make it sound like us Christians need to walk in love and tolerance of others. And I still havent found in scripture where it says, be tolerant to sinners in their sin...

God's Love is self-sacrificial which implies perseverance in bearing the sins of others on a cross of suffering, so I don't see how anyone can cheer about it. ​

Here are just a couple of places where scripture shows that, a Christlike love, loves sinners even while in their sin.​

Romans 5:7-8​

7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.​

8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.​

​

John 13:34​

34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.​

 

[ozso]

Genuine question: Do you consider the satirical song that's been the center of this thread to be one of those sources, or an example of those kinds of sources?

Because if so, that would lead me to think that the way you ingest information on this topic is through a highly prejudicial filter.

Imagine, for example, if one assumed all Christians are violent religious fanatics. Now imagine the kind of sources one might be using, even "Christian sources"--after all, Westboro Baptist Church does exist. Now, also imagine, you came across satire poking fun of the idea that all Christians are violent fanatics--but instead of perceiving the satire for what it's saying you instead filtered that through your own prejudicial assumptions about Christians.

After all, Christians are violent religious fanatics: The Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Rhineland Massacre, the Salem Witch Trials, Westboro Baptist Church. I mean, none of that paints a good picture of people who call themselves Christian. And sure, maybe you've met Christians who don't fit that view you have of them, but you can find ways to compartmentalize that. A handful of maybe-okay Christians doesn't really change the fact that Christians are bad people. You have plenty of examples, and you can find Christian sources to back up your feelings and thoughts.

Does that make Christians, by default, violent religious fanatics? Does even a preponderance of evidence of Christians acting like violent fanatics make Christians--by default--violent fanatics? Is it a fair and accurate way to engage other people by working on prejudicial assumptions, even when one can back up those assumptions with examples, even a massive amount of examples? Ignoring all bigger conversations that could emerge from what I'm saying here, simple question: How do you want to be treated? How would you feel if someone treated you as a statistic or as a blank face representative of a group? I assume that you, like almost everyone else, wants to be treated as yourself--that you aren't just a number, but a face, a person with feelings and thoughts, and an entire lived experience that is uniquely your own.

While there is a lot, I think, that could be expanded upon in what I've said above; the real point I'm trying to get at is actually pretty simple: The dangers of confirmation bias and prejudicial thinking.

That is to say: Of choosing to interpret people through an assumption or set of assumptions about a group; accepting ideas and statements which selectively confirm what one already thinks and believes; and without allowing assumptions to be seriously challenged.

-CryptoLutheran

EDIT: I've modified some what I've said and tried to make things more clear and coherent.

Explain to me how being against the sudden involvement of little kids in the transgender transsexual multi-sexual orientation rabbit hole, equates to me treating an individual badly.

 

[ozso]

I can appreciate your response (see post #590). However, I believe it would be more accurate to have said the above this way, "Speaking out against any LGBTQQIP2SAA+ community putting so much into involving little kids does not necessarily make one a Pharisee". Saying it this way avoids inferring people are liars who warn about the hypocrisy of the Pharisees in this circumstance, which also avoids muddying the waters.

To be as wise as a serpent and as gentle as a lamb means to me that we must consider that Satan as both an accuser and tempter can present himself as an angel of light in both opposing subjective narratives. I believe the semantics are parsed correctly in sentiments that project virtue as a power that is by grace through faith in the Christ as opposed to being apprehended through the works of the law. Any sentiments that suggest otherwise are going to contain condemnation since no flesh is justified by the works of the law.

As generalizations, I currently see two sides claiming (1) The law should reflect that it's not okay to discriminate against LGBTQQIP2SAA+ based on one's religious beliefs (2) The law should reflect that it is okay to discriminate against LGBTQQIP2SAA+ based on one's religious beliefs.

The way this is framed therefore contains a false premise which will end in hypocrisy either way.

This however is not hypocritical: People should learn and teach their children the difference between Love and lust.

Is being against the sudden involvement of little kids in the transgender transsexual multi-sexual orientation rabbit hole, really discrimination?

 

[Bradskii]

Whatever. That's irrevelant anyway...

It's the very reason for the thread. And it ended up being an excellent example of people accepting lies because it's what they want to believe.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Explain to me how being against the sudden involvement of little kids in the transgender transsexual multi-sexual orientation rabbit hole, equates to me treating an individual badly.

Are you against teaching little kids to treat people kindly?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

So what's up with the acronyms and symbols and flags etc?

So if I use Irish flags and symbols, because I'm Irish-American, I'm part of an organization now? What's this Irish-American organization I'm part of?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Whatever. That's irrevelant anyway because as soon as as all you gays picked up your shovel and started spewing dog poop to recruit for your gay club the thread took off on it's own.

Do you believe that your attitude here is what St. Paul had in mind when he wrote, "Have this same mind in you that was in Christ Jesus"?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[childeye 2]

Is being against the sudden involvement of little kids in the transgender transsexual multi-sexual orientation rabbit hole, really discrimination?

I'm convinced your intentions come from a sincere concern for others. Accordingly, you would only be against others who you feel are against themselves.

The problem is the term discrimination actually carries three different connotations: Pro/positive, Con/negative, and a neutral connotation. The positive/negative connotations will reverse in opposing subjective views while the objective view is neutral. Both subjective views can therefore claim a negative discrimination against their side.

I believe the devil uses the occasion of semantics to cause division and misunderstandings where people would otherwise agree. The term devil means accuser/slanderer and promotes cynicism rather than grace through faith.

I don't believe anyone would disagree with this: People should learn and teach their children the difference between Love and lust.

 

[ozso]

So if I use Irish flags and symbols, because I'm Irish-American, I'm part of an organization now? What's this Irish-American organization I'm part of?

-CryptoLutheran

Organization: an organized body of people with a particular purpose, especially a business, society, association etc. Is LGBTQ+ disorganized and without a purpose in society?

 

[ozso]

Are you against teaching little kids to treat people kindly?

-CryptoLutheran

Why would teaching little kids to treat people kindly need to involve teaching them about transgender, transsexual and multi-sexual orientation etc?

 

[ozso]

I'm convinced your intentions come from a sincere concern for others. The problem is the term discrimination actually carries three different connotations: Pro/positive, Con/negative, and a neutral connotation. The positive/negative connotations will reverse in opposing subjective views while the objective view is neutral. Both subjective views can therefore claim a negative discrimination against their side. I believe the devil uses the occasion of semantics to cause division. The term devil means accuser/slanderer and promotes cynicism rather than grace through faith.

Are you in support of LGBTQ+ teaching little kids about transgender, transsexual and multi-sexual orientation etc? Yes or No?

 

[ozso]

Do you believe that your attitude here is what St. Paul had in mind when he wrote, "Have this same mind in you that was in Christ Jesus"?

-CryptoLutheran

Considering what Paul said against homosexuality, sexual immorality, and living to satisfy the the flesh and encouraging others to do the same, I'd say yes.

Considering that Jesus said, “Things that cause people to stumble are bound to come, but woe to anyone through whom they come. 2 It would be better for them to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around their neck than to cause one of these little ones to stumble (Luke 17:1-2), I'd say yes.


But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.” Matthew 16:23

 

[childeye 2]

Are you in support of LGBTQ+ teaching little kids about transgender, transsexual and multi-sexual orientation etc? Yes or No?

Anyone who doesn't know the difference between love and lust are unqualified to teach about that.

 

[ozso]

Anyone who doesn't know the difference between love and lust are unqualified to teach about it.

Is that a Yes or a No to my question?

 

[childeye 2]

Is that a Yes or a No to my question?

Your question as posed contains a false premise in the form of an over-generalization. Whether I say yes or no it would affirm the generalization as an accurate depiction of the issue. I'm not against teaching anything factual although some things are inappropriate at young ages.

As I understand it, some transgenders can be genetic, and some can be psychological. Transexual also can likewise also be due to genetics, but if psychological I believe there are better treatments. Which means these types of conditions would need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to understand the root cause and appropriate treatment. Whereas I believe that queer, multi-sexual and gay orientations are more directly tied to confusing lust with love, and I think there is an age that children should be taught the difference.

If, however, you meant, should kids be taught to not treat any of these groups with disdain because they are different, then why is it that only LGBTQ+ be the ones qualified to teach about it? On the other hand, if it's a case of genetics, perhaps theses might be the best teachers to convey what that is like. If you are concerned children might become gay or bisexual if taught it's okay, then teaching children the difference between love and lust at an appropriate age should not be offensive.

 

[ozso]

Your question as posed contains a false premise in the form of an over-generalization. Whether I say yes or no it would affirm the generalization as accurate.

Some transgenders could be genetic, and some could be psychological. Transexual also could likewise also be either genetic or psychological, which means these types of conditions would need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to understand the root cause. Whereas I believe that queer, multi-sexual and gay orientations are more directly tied to confusing lust with love.

If, however, you meant, should kids be taught to not treat any of these groups with disdain because they are different, then why is it that only LGBTQ+ be the ones qualified to teach about it? On the other hand, if it's a case of genetics, perhaps theses might be the best teachers to convey what it's like.

The opposite of disdain is admiration. And that's what they want to teach kids, to admire LGBTQ+, and teach kids they can be any combination of genders and sexual orientations. That they are whatever they choose to identify as. And that everyone has to go along with it or else they're hateful bigots. Are you in favor of this?

 

[childeye 2]

The opposite of disdain is admiration. And that's what they want to teach kids, to admire LGBTQ+, and teach kids they can be any combination of genders and sexual orientations. That they are whatever they choose to identify as. And that everyone has to go along with it or else they're hateful bigots. Are you in favor of this?

Again, people are reasoning upon an over-generalization when they list LGBTQ+ and speak as if they are one thing. I don't believe that's generally true nor feasible as pertains to the gay, queer, and bisexual; I know the difference between love and lust, and lust is not admirable to anyone who knows the difference.

If you are concerned children might become gay or bisexual if taught it's okay, then teaching children the difference between love and lust at an appropriate age should not be offensive.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Why would teaching little kids to treat people kindly need to involve teaching them about transgender, transsexual and multi-sexual orientation etc?

Do you you believe that we should treat other people, including trans and non-heterosexual people kindly?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ozso]

Again, people are reasoning upon an over-generalization when they list LGBTQ+ and speak as if they are one thing. I don't believe that's generally true nor feasible as pertains to the gay, queer, and bisexual; I know the difference between love and lust, and lust is not admirable to anyone who knows the difference.

If you are concerned children might become gay or bisexual if taught it's okay, then teaching children the difference between love and lust at an appropriate age should not be offensive.

As a Christian do you see fornication being moral if it's based on love?