Discussion about hot topics trending today

[aretood2]

where did I say anything about killing the proverbial squatter? running said squatter out of the house doesn't have to involve killing

You never said anything in to the contrary.

and Scripture refers to those squatters in His Father's House as money changers, does it not?.....you accuse me of profaning a holy thing yet offer little, if any proof....were this a court of law you'd be laughed right out of court....and just as the actions of those squatters were an affront to God's property, as you said...so is a homeowner well within his rights to use similar means to run squatters out of his own home, as that squatter's actions are an affront to the property of the homeowner

What proof is needed?

And I would argue that no matter what kind of peace He was talking about, temporal or spiritual, the "sword imagery" sets a pretty harsh tone....albeit a necessary one....to teach that the Truth can be quite harsh...but I was merely making a point that a pure pacifist like some Christians have argued Christ was (not you perhaps but others) would not use imagery like that

You can argue that Jesus was an alien that came from space to preach an alien religion, wouldn't mean anything. You're taking the verse out of context. The sword represents conflict, Christians will face conflict for their beliefs. And they did face major conflict in the first century. Yet, they weren't going around fighting. The conflict isn't literal and the expression is not one that lends itself to a literal interpretation at all. By conflict, that's like your pagan father disowning you for becoming a Christian or being barred from the local Synagogue.

oh...and also....were this a court of law....I would be calling for an objection...as you are assuming facts not in evidence

never said I would outright hunt down a home invader or thief and kill him in cold blood....running him out of the house would be sufficient....though I am inclined to agree that a show of armed force of ANY kind would very likely be enough for a home invader/thief to think twice before continuing the home invasion/burglary and certainly aid in the "running him out of the house" part

That's what I read into your post. Garhkal and Annoyed were arguing that you should be able to outright hunt down a looter and kill him in cold blood for simply breaking a window and trying to run off with a TV set. Then you made your post without saying anything to the contrary. So I apologize for misreading you in that regard.

Those two guys would seem to imply that they can simply shoot the squatter on sight.

[Gatefan1976]

Ahhhh......................
The good old literal Vs Figurative dabate.
If it can be bad, it's figurative, if it's good it's literal.

[mad_gater]

You never said anything in to the contrary.


What proof is needed?



You can argue that Jesus was an alien that came from space to preach an alien religion, wouldn't mean anything. You're taking the verse out of context. The sword represents conflict, Christians will face conflict for their beliefs. And they did face major conflict in the first century. Yet, they weren't going around fighting. The conflict isn't literal and the expression is not one that lends itself to a literal interpretation at all. By conflict, that's like your pagan father disowning you for becoming a Christian or being barred from the local Synagogue.



That's what I read into your post. Garhkal and Annoyed were arguing that you should be able to outright hunt down a looter and kill him in cold blood for simply breaking a window and trying to run off with a TV set. Then you made your post without saying anything to the contrary. So I apologize for misreading you in that regard.

Those two guys would seem to imply that they can simply shoot the squatter on sight.

actually one could argue that wars and crimes are temporal expressions of the conflict going on within every human person....and the late Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen did just that:

"Wars come from egotism and selfishness. Every macrocosmic or world war has its origin in microcosmic wars going on inside millions and millions of individuals."

[Coco Pops]

What do you think of parents who are advocating that it's their right as parents to turn little Ruby or Johnny into transgender children if they feel that way at a very young age, like putting them on hormones at the age of 3 or something?

Child abuse or not?

[The Flyattractor]

I think those children should be taken away from the and then the "parents" need to be spayed and neutered. They need to be removed from the gene pool. Its already getting to shallow.

[garhkal]

What do you think of parents who are advocating that it's their right as parents to turn little Ruby or Johnny into transgender children if they feel that way at a very young age, like putting them on hormones at the age of 3 or something?

Child abuse or not?

Well, if i as a parent can be done for 'child abuse' cause i feed the kid too much and he becomes overweight, or feed him too little they become anorexic, or give them too much discipline, then HELL yes to me, 'giving into their whim' and make them feel like the opposite sex when they don't EVEN KNOW what the differences are between genders yet, should damn well be child abuse too!

[Pharaoh Hamenthotep]

What do you think of parents who are advocating that it's their right as parents to turn little Ruby or Johnny into transgender children if they feel that way at a very young age, like putting them on hormones at the age of 3 or something?

Child abuse or not?

No one is putting three year olds on hormones. Just letting them wear different clothes.

Wrapping their legs individually or as a pair.

Sparkly tops! THE HORROR!!

If it's just a phase and they grow out of it. Then no harm done. But if it continues into their teens, when hormones actually kick in. Then medical intervention becomes an option. That the child gets to make. With the ongoing help and advice of psychologists.

[Coco Pops]

No one is putting three year olds on hormones. Just letting them wear different clothes.

Wrapping their legs individually or as a pair.

Sparkly tops! THE HORROR!!

If it's just a phase and they grow out of it. Then no harm done. But if it continues into their teens, when hormones actually kick in. Then medical intervention becomes an option. That the child gets to make. With the ongoing help and advice of psychologists.

But isn't it those very same psychologists that are encouraging letting little Ruby or Johnny do this and not provide any kind of alternative to give them a choice?

[Pharaoh Hamenthotep]

But isn't it those very same psychologists that are encouraging letting little Ruby or Johnny do this and not provide any kind of alternative to give them a choice?

Letting them explore their feelings is the better alternative to locking them in closet and telling them to get over it.

[Gatefan1976]

But isn't it those very same psychologists that are encouraging letting little Ruby or Johnny do this and not provide any kind of alternative to give them a choice?

What?
How do they not offer an alternative?
A "diagnosis" of Transgenderism (and I use that term not in a medical way) is not the first cab off the rank for psychologists, it's around last.

[thekillman]

What do you think of parents who are advocating that it's their right as parents to turn little Ruby or Johnny into transgender children if they feel that way at a very young age, like putting them on hormones at the age of 3 or something?

Child abuse or not?

That depends on your opinion on the rights of children vs parents.

But putting children on hormones at age 3? That sounds like it can't be healthy.

[Annoyed]

Sounds like a couple of "activist" parents, trying to recruit their children.

[thekillman]

Sounds like a couple of "activist" parents, trying to recruit their children.

And Christians forcing their kids to go to church, don't? Parents either have the right to decide what's good for their children, or not. If yes, it applies to everything. If not, it applies to everything.

[aretood2]

Ahhhh......................
The good old literal Vs Figurative dabate.
If it can be bad, it's figurative, if it's good it's literal.

What? As far as this verse, Ancient commentators would back me up. I mean...the Bible wasn't written for people with autism. It is rife with imagery, metaphors, and figurative speech (that is speech from thousands of years ago that isn't used anymore by a language(s) that until recently (some) were dead).

I take the Bible literally. Just that you have to be a buffoon to think every word is literal. I guess it's more accurate to say that I take it as it is written.

actually one could argue that wars and crimes are temporal expressions of the conflict going on within every human person....and the late Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen did just that:

"Wars come from egotism and selfishness. Every macrocosmic or world war has its origin in microcosmic wars going on inside millions and millions of individuals."

Which is why we should strive to place a high value on human life.

And Christians forcing their kids to go to church, don't? Parents either have the right to decide what's good for their children, or not. If yes, it applies to everything. If not, it applies to everything.

What makes you think he doesn't agree with you on that point?

[Ian-S]

Church is a far fly from pumping your kid full of drugs because you think the child is a girl, not a boy.

Most three year olds barely know how to piss straight or hold a conversation for more than a few seconds let alone know, understand or comprehend the notion of sexuality.

Anybody who says different is either deluded, or never bought up a child.