antiskeptic wrote: » I can't say whether they would go, since their gayness isn't the only thing in play. But their not repenting of their gayness needn't prevent them from going to heaven. As my waffle points out.
antiskeptic wrote: » It was more a commentary of your own faith-based belief system (a.k.a. empiricism).
stefanovich wrote: » They are telling me I need to conform to their version of reality.
Nobelium wrote: » People can call themselves whatever they like, that's their own business . . . issues do arise however when an attempt is made to force other people to call a biological male a female, or a biological female a male.
Nobelium wrote: » People can identify themselves as whatever they like, that's their own business . . . issues can and do arise however when an attempt is made to force other people by law to refer to a biological male as a female, or refer to a biological female as a male as occurred in Canada with the C16 bill.
antiskeptic wrote: » I'm afraid that won't do. An argument can be labelled simplistic and inaccurate because it is simplistic and inaccurate - not because the person pointing it out is being patronising. This isn't some lucky dip where you comment only on what you want to comment on. You make statements, the statements are challenged, you respond to defend/clarify or take on board that your own thinking might need to alter to include something closer to the reality of things. You have thunk this would be welcomes. Surely you'd prefer to rail against Christianity than in a cardboard cut out version of Christianity. Arguing against the former argues against something that exists. Arguing against the latter .. what's the point?
King Mob wrote: » And point dodged.
And again.
Show us why they should be taken anymore seriously than say the beliefs of the Westboro Baptist Church.
Bannasidhe wrote: » Exactly what effect does that have on you? Zero. It's not your body. It's not your life. No-one is forcing anyone to call you anything you don't wish to be called.
Bannasidhe wrote: » Then the issue is yours not theirs. They are saying "this is who I am". You want them to conform to who you want them to be. You want to impose your version of reality on someone else's life. You don't get to do that.
Nobelium wrote: » Can you show me where I claimed : What effect it has on me Someone else's body was mine Someone else's life was mine Someone was forcing anyone to call me anything I don't wish to be called. After you've done that care to address the actual post that was made instead of attempting a piss poor lazy strawman ?
antiskeptic wrote: » How so? I can't say (certainly not with any degree of accuracy about a person I don't know) whether a person will be saved or not? If they repent (as outlined) then yes. If not no. How would I know whether they repented (as outlined) or not. Even if they told me they did that wouldn't mean they did. I can't detail my rational to someone using English when they only speak French. They simply wouldn't understand what I'm saying. It would sound like gobbeldy gook to them. Indeed, you often say and show something along those lines, that Christianity is gobbeldy gook to you Why have you excluded your own beliefs from this. Why should I take your beliefs more seriously than those of WBC? Oh yeah. "Us" The presumed position. The majority rule. The "we come along way from that". Lot's of fluff, so little substance.
Bannasidhe wrote: » Care to explain your exact issue with Canada's law? What does it matter to you if someone wishes to be identified as a gender other than the one they were biologically born with? Why shouldn't Canada recognise they have this right?
antiskeptic wrote: » Being is wrong as in not per God's original intent.
I don't see myself being wrong because I was born a sinner. I didn't do anything as such to be one.
stefanovich wrote: » Okay, so I suppose all new born babies should be marked as gender undefined until they are old enough to decide whether they are a girl or a boy? I think there are a lot of left wing parents participating in what can only be described as child abuse. Confusing their children about gender and sex. Little boys running around in dresses with makeup on. If you have a penis you are male. A vagina you are female. I suppose a hermaphrodite might be the exception. I think adults getting confused about their gender have other issues going on.
King Mob wrote: » Could you detail the research and reading you have done before you came to your conclusions? What qualifications in psychology do you have?
Nobelium wrote: » Typically, you haven't answered any of the actual questions or replied to actual post, and tried to deflect any question with a question. This is pretty low quality stuff.
stefanovich wrote: » Basic biology. Massively high suicide rate among transgendered people.
Bannasidhe wrote: » How does this affect your life? Personally, I think parents who teach children that if they don't behave a certain way they will burn for eternity are committing child abuse. Parents who bring their children to conversion therapy are guilty of child abuse. Are you equally incensed about those (often right-wing) parents?
King Mob wrote: » Ok, what qualifications do you have in biology? Do you have none in psychology? What research exactly have you done in the topic of the suicide rate of trans people?
stefanovich wrote: » You are having a giraffe.
Bannasidhe wrote: » Indeed. Low quality stuff to bring up a law in Canada and then refuse to explain what your actual problem is with that law.
King Mob wrote: » Ah ok. You hold no qualifications in biology or psychology and you haven't done any research. I misunderstood you. So why do you think your opinion is at all supported or sound when you have no basis for understanding a very complex topic?
stefanovich wrote: » 40 years in this world, observing reality.
batgoat wrote: » So anecdotal is your entire argument that you have a pretty specialist knowledge.
stefanovich wrote: » They are removing the right to free speech from others. They are enshrining in law something which is objectively not true. They are making truth a crime.
Nobelium wrote: » I'm interested in an actual discussion about what I actually posted, not low ball juvenile attempts at pretending what I posted.
Bannasidhe wrote: » If I am reading this correctly your problem is that when you disagree with how someone else is living their life your right to say what you like is being trumped by their right to live their lives as they wish? Even though how they live their life has no actual impact on your life...
Bannasidhe wrote: » Again, you have failed to explain why you think a law in Canada is relevant or what your actual issue with it is... I didn't bring it up for discussion. You did. And now you refuse to discuss it.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/867a9f20e705add43a3ada2e4f4480cc.svg)
