stanberger
Active Member
it has opened the door to transgenderings kids etc. pandora box open
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Homosexuality does not signal end times or destruction
- Thread starter Brickjectivity
- Start date
Guitar's Cry
Disciple of Pan
So as long as homosexuals are moral about their relationships--not abusive, assuring consent, etc.--it is perfectly fine? That works for me.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
What a goofy non sequitur.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Thankfully, real morals are based on reason and compassion rather than irrational, arbitrary, and unsubstantiated superstitions. If anything, morals have evolved since the brutal savagery of biblical times.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
It appears to have opened the door to incoherent sentences as well.
Not following. This is ambiguous. "Transgenderings kids?"
Do you mean transgender kids; kids who are transgender?
Do you mean transgender-ing kids, as in turning a kid transgender? And what's the terminal "s" mean? Please clarify.
What do you mean by "opening the door?" Do you mean making transgender kids legal? Allowing them particular rights you don't like? Or do you see "transgendering" as the creation of transgender kids -- which you oppose?
Do you see it as some kind of child abuse, or social threat? Again. Please clarify.
You seem to fear it. What harm do you see in it? How is it a threat?
Please clarify your objections.
Last edited:
stanberger
Active Member
its a sin in every religion. the liberal elite bankers have their own agendaSo as long as homosexuals are moral about their relationships--not abusive, assuring consent, etc.--it is perfectly fine? That works for me.
stanberger
Active Member
60's free sex. is cool no problem. 50 yrs later. 54 million Americans on food stamps. most single moms. baby mommas
Lol Armageddon be likeI should hope it doesn't. It's been around as long we have -- and in a lot of other animals and birds, as well.
If it's a signal, I'd say the signal's been stuck for a long time.
Agreed. Morality involves actual harm, not "ickyness," not convention, not tradition or 'standards', and not adherence to some abstract rules with no apparent practical purpose.
Pretty sure single parent families existed before the 60s. Usually due to high mortality rates, tbh
The 50s style leave it to Beaver households were really more of a thing post WWII. They existed before the war of course. But that became more of a phenomenon due to the economic success leading to the baby boom. Such economic times haven’t existed since like the 80s though.
And I’m pretty sure everyone was like coked up during those times anyway lol
(That was a joke, guys)
What's that got to do with free sex, and what's free sex got to do with your issues with transgender kids?
In 1981 there was an fundamental shift in the country's economic and social philosophy. This led to the unraveling of the social safety net and the commodification of social and economic institutions and protections.
Don't you think this may have had something to do with today's shrinking middle class, growing underclass, stagnant economy and growing wealth gap?
I don't see the relevance of 'transgender kids' to all this.
Guitar's Cry
Disciple of Pan
Was this post brought to me by the letter Q?
Haven't conventionalists been bemoaning the moral degeneration of society since ancient Greece? When when should we expect these end times?
What constitutes "moral degeneration" anyway?
I get the impression that conventionalists equate it with novelty, change and unfamiliarity, not with actual morality; and they equate morality with familiarity, predictability, convention or tradition, not with actual harm. Immorality = whatever makes them uncomfortable.
Again, what does "transgendering kids" mean?
I don't understand what you're talking about. I don't even understand whether you're using it as a noun or verb.
Last edited:
You know very little about religion, I see. It is a sin in many Abrahamic religions, not in religions in general. Moreover, your concept of sin is derived from the Abrahamic traditions, as well.
And what do bankers have to do with it?
Please define "sin."
Do you equate it with violation of an abstract religious rule, with no relation to its consequences? If so, what good is your morality, if it has no usefulness, no practical effect?
“Children are tyrants!” -Attributed to Socrates by Plato
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
It's adorable how liberals are "commies" one moment and "bankers" the next.
That silliness aside, no it's not a "sin" in every religion. It means very little regardless, given that religions are merely cultural constructs.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Another odd non sequitur.
Many people believe as you on that. You aren't the only one. I think I've met other people on this forum and in real life who also think so, and that is a much more supportable position from scripture than the position I'm objecting to. At least scripture talks about resurrection, and at least it talks about whether people will or won't marry at the resurrection. That at least could be debated.
That also makes sense given that scenario.
I don't wish to push a lot of points or argue about the resurrection just wish to avoid supporting a position about resurrection that I don't have. The only objection I wish to make in the thread is to the claim of some that Jesus is talking about homosexuals in Matthew 22:30. That is far fetched and projects onto it a lot of things that simply aren't there in my opinion. There is nothing to debate but shadows.