Social Transgender Megathread Vol. 2

[GearSolidMetal]

the bible ALSO recommends celibacy as a permanent state... truth is there is more than one sacred way to live promoted in the bible.

...unless someone has the desire to ever get married, and to be celibate until marriage.

The thing is ALOT of people, especially now, think they won't ever get married, and they may be right but the fact is we may change our minds. Hell, I knew a girl in high school that publically stated she'll never get married and have kids because she hated kids.

20 years later, she's been married for 15 years and has 7 kids.

dont know what you mean about another mammal.

Another species of animal, not reptilian or amphibian, on the planet that has a third gender and what is its purpose?

when you say god created man and woman you are assuming a fall from grace post creation. i am not saying that is WRONG but there are alternatives within orthodox Christianity. remember nobody EVER said the bible is the ONLY source of wisdom until luther which is very recent. many orthodox theologians do NOT take genesis as a literal account (it cant be anyway and is absurd to believe so) so that means the fall from grace could have happened pre fall from grace and the division into male and female supported by god and enabled by god was only meant to be a temporary state due to sin.

This is another subject, but yeah, science has revealed that the planet wasn't created in six literal days as we know as a 'day.'
The bible hints at this, saying God created the sun on the 3rd day (I believe). So the world was created in six of God's days.

How long is a day to God? Well, what is time to an immortal?

all mystics male or female are brought to a place where the feminine and masculine tendencies are FULLY developed. men must become profoundly soft and repetitive without losing strength and women must become strong without losing softness. i personalty hear this element of spiritual development spoken of OFTEN. i could write ten pages on this alone frankly.

I read this and was like -



Again.... What mystics?

 

[Prefect]

Big money part of drive to promote trans movement.

Why is anyone quoting Mr.Dry Pussy on anything?

 

[Deleted member 577981]

...unless someone has the desire to ever get married, and to be celibate until marriage.

The thing is ALOT of people, especially now, think they won't ever get married, and they may be right but the fact is we may change our minds. Hell, I knew a girl in high school that publically stated she'll never get married and have kids because she hated kids.

20 years later, she's been married for 15 years and has 7 kids.



Another species of animal, not reptilian or amphibian, on the planet that has a third gender and what is its purpose?



This is another subject, but yeah, science has revealed that the planet wasn't created in six literal days as we know as a 'day.'
The bible hints at this, saying God created the sun on the 3rd day (I believe). So the world was created in six of God's days.

How long is a day to God? Well, what is time to an immortal?



I read this and was like -



Again.... What mystics?

there are thousands of well known christian mystics. i cant tell if you are calling this into question or what is the reason for this line of questioning. i could throw out some names but there are so many...... john of the cross (my leaste favorite of all time), teresa of avila (my favorite of all time) , francis of Assisi, etc etc. the names go all the way back to the very first days of the early church and in the bible too. paul was a mystic, pentacost was a profound mystical experience that all the disciples experienced, the gospel of john is a mystical gospel. john has always been thought to be an extremely advanced mystic.

if you have never heard about the softening of the heart necessary to enter into union with god then you probably just haven't been exposed to much in the way of christian spirituality. im not speaking fringe theology here.

if you happen to have an interest the best book i have ever read bar none is this one. this is the most important book ive ever read, it spells out all the relevant mystical theology for christians. not only does it explain it all in detail but it transmits power too. it is quite profound.

i liked all your other points but did not have much to add to them is all man.

 

[Deleted member 577981]

That's nice, but you do give religious right talking points on this issue, the moment you say that you believe that something is "wrong" with these people. That's just the way it is.



As opposed to...religion? Really?



Your positions aren't "generous" though. Just because you're not saying "Throw them all in hole, so they can burn in Hell", doesn't make your position a whole lot more enlightened or "generous", because at the end of the day, you are saying they aren't right as human beings.



What "new way" of being? The "correct" way deemed by some vague "advanced spirituality" defined by your religious beliefs? That's just a bunch of gobblygook, to deflect away that you believe these people are living the "wrong" way.



Where is the exaggeration? What don't you agree with? You've posted plenty about the lines these people have crossed, which is what most level headed people talk about, when criticizing them. I don't think you're as "generous" as you believe you are. I'm not trying to be a dick here, but I think you're confused. Akin to a closeted gay man, who just can't come to terms with who he is.

i feel that saying they might be advanced and at the cutting edge of a move towards transcending gender is pretty generous. i think they could be wrong in their approach and still be ahead of me or you spiritually. i think that is generous and i really believe it is possible.

to the exaggeration point what i am saying is that the christian right is way too often emotionally judgmental towards these groups, exaggerates the seriousness of their sin and focuses on that particular sin inordinately while hardly mentioning the kinds of sin they themselves seem completely absorbed in. i also think they often have a magical view of what is wrong with homosexuality and often don't seem to have a grasp on the subtleties of the situation.

go to any right wing radio station and nearly all the advertisements are about how to build wealth and accumulate wealth and that is something jesus said not to do in so many different ways. he spoke extremely strongly about NEVER seeking out wealth, how difficult it would be for a wealthy person to get into heaven and other more troubling analogies associated with wealth and the damned afterlife wealthy people could expect. yet its all many right wing Christians focus on.

when you ask what new way of being i am referring to i am speaking as a christian. i am not asking anyone to agree with me. i just want to represent the system as best i can.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

The right’s fascination with this is gross. What business is it of this nutcase, Shapiro? If some consenting adult, or some consenting child and their family make a decision along with their doctor and a reputable University Med School to, for example, remove (or not remove ) healthy breast tissue? Maybe Shapiro could just mind his f#$king business.

There are what, 10,000 of these surgeries per year in the US? a small fraction of those are under 18 and a small fraction of those occur at this University. (Glutches pearls!)

But, a million DEAD from Covid 19 at that’s a “nothing Burger” to the right.

What about the children? Fine, about 1 in 7 children in the US experienced abuse or neglect in the last year, per the CDC. Where is Shapiro on this? Why the intense interest the sexual identities and sexual medical decisions of minors and their families?

If I said I thought I was the king of England I would be sent for medical evaluation, but if I say I fell like I'm really a chick a dr will give me hormones and cut off my dick.

Do you not see a problem with that?

 

[GearSolidMetal]

there are thousands of well known christian mystics. i cant tell if you are calling this into question or what is the reason for this line of questioning.

I have never heard of any 'Christian Mystics' in my life.

i could throw out some names but there are so many...... john of the cross (my leaste favorite of all time), teresa of avila (my favorite of all time) , francis of Assisi, etc etc. the names go all the way back to the very first days of the early church and in the bible too.

Then men had feminine physical qualities, and the women had masculine physical qualities?

paul was a mystic, pentacost was a profound mystical experience that all the disciples experienced, the gospel of john is a mystical gospel. john has always been thought to be an extremely advanced mystic.

Based on what?

if you have never heard about the softening of the heart necessary to enter into union with god then you probably just haven't been exposed to much in the way of christian spirituality. im not speaking fringe theology here

I grew up in a Southern Baptist church.

This is the first time I've ever heard of 'ancient christian mystics' with transexual qualities.

if you happen to have an interest the best book i have ever read bar none is this one. this is the most important book ive ever read, it spells out all the relevant mystical theology for christians. not only does it explain it all in detail but it transmits power too. it is quite profound.

So.... these mystics are supposed to be reflections of the modern transexual movement?

Yes or no?

Because the bible itself has alot of interesting verses.

Deut 22:5
"“A woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God"

Deut 23:1
"No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord."

Genesis 1:27
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."

No mention of a 3rd sex, or 'gender,' created by God.

 

[Deleted member 577981]

I have never heard of any 'Christian Mystics' in my life.



Then men had feminine physical qualities, and the women had masculine physical qualities?



Based on what?



I grew up in a Southern Baptist church.

This is the first time I've ever heard of 'ancient christian mystics' with transexual qualities.



So.... these mystics are supposed to be reflections of the modern transexual movement?

Yes or no?

Because the bible itself has alot of interesting verses.

Deut 22:5
"“A woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God"

Deut 23:1
"No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord."

Genesis 1:27
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."

No mention of a 3rd sex, or 'gender,' created by God.

the southern babtist church holds to a principle as a foundation of their theology. its referred to as sola scriptura (only scripture). ironically this notion that you ONLY get info about what the bible means from the bible itself is not in the bible!! the entire idea NEVER existed for the first 1800 years of Christianity and did not exist in the early church.

because of this foundational principle all of those who hold it do not avail themselves of the wealth of literature that has accompanied the bible from the very beginning (actually some of the preachers are exposed to it but they dont teach it to the lay person and this depends greatly on which sect we are speaking about ) i am NOT here to say this approach is wrong but this is the reason you have never heard about christian mystics.

ive NEVER said anything about transsexual qualities. ive only spoken of the need for any person to allow the holy spirit to soften the heart (especially of men) and become receptive (a quality associated with the feminine principle. ive spoken of the need for a person to be both hard and soft and men and women both have a long journey of transformation here. i never meant to say that there have been transsexual Christian mystics man.

in the entirety of the christian church and from its very existence it has NEVER thought god had a body or was male or female. i highly doubt even the southern babtists disagree here but i suppose i could be wrong. god is a trinitarian spiritual being..... all christian's agree on this point friend. made in the image of god does NOT mean we look like god. god is a spirit that trancends male and female.

here is a quote from jesus about enuchs. people who cut their balls off.

"For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

i am NOT making a direct argument here about transsexuals and eunuchs but since you quoted some scripture pointing the other way i thought this would add some nuance.


i hope you can tell that im not arguing with you and i hope you are not either man. i dont want to argue but if we are having a good faith discussion then this is really nice.

 

[Deleted member 577981]

we say paul was a mystic because he has mystical experiences.... that is all being a mystic means. it does not mean being a wizard or something like that. its experiencing god directly and intensely-- like when he was caught up into the third heaven or when they saw the holy spirit descend upon them.

@GearSolidMetal

 

[Hollywood Jack]

That's nice, but you do give religious right talking points on this issue, the moment you say that you believe that something is "wrong" with these people. That's just the way it is.



As opposed to...religion? Really?



Your positions aren't "generous" though. Just because you're not saying "Throw them all in hole, so they can burn in Hell", doesn't make your position a whole lot more enlightened or "generous", because at the end of the day, you are saying they aren't right as human beings.



What "new way" of being? The "correct" way deemed by some vague "advanced spirituality" defined by your religious beliefs? That's just a bunch of gobblygook, to deflect away that you believe these people are living the "wrong" way.



Where is the exaggeration? What don't you agree with? You've posted plenty about the lines these people have crossed, which is what most level headed people talk about, when criticizing them. I don't think you're as "generous" as you believe you are. I'm not trying to be a dick here, but I think you're confused. Akin to a closeted gay man, who just can't come to terms with who he is.

It seems like your sole opposition is that he's someone with these beliefs and who expresses them while being on the left and aligned with the left here. You NEVER challenge anyone on the right or aligned with the right here like this. People are messy and complicated and often have a mish-mash of beliefs from across the spectrum that can sometimes be contradictory in how they intersect with each other. And this is forced in the two-party system.

There's not a major/viable party that is socially conservative and fiscally liberal. So people like @gremins have to choose what they want to prioritize. He chooses to prioritize his social democratic views on economics and healthcare rather than his socially conservative views. I think he also realizes that the economic policies of the Republicans are not conducive to being pro-family. They necessitate that women work outside the home. They don't encourage women to have children and stay within the home because they won't receive support.

 

[AristotleAmadopolis]

Such a shame all the churches are doing such a brilliant job of not fucking children. And yet we worry about men reading stories to children in dresses. Bring up a stat of storytime with kids, even do it pro rata with drag queens compared to clergy.

logical fallacy. Red herring.

 

[AristotleAmadopolis]

The fact that there even is a debate on this topic just shows how infected and demented some people have become in the age of modernity and moral relativism.

The same demented doofuses who support child abuse and mutilation and do so thinking they are righteous would be the people defending slavery in the 1700s and nazi sympathizing snitches in the 1900s.

 

[HereticBD]

It seems like your sole opposition is that he's someone with these beliefs and who expresses them while being on the left and aligned with the left here. You NEVER challenge anyone on the right or aligned with the right here like this.

See, the problem is, you're full of shit and are just emotionally waving pom poms here, because he's on your "team". I have clashed with people on the the right on an issue like guns quite a bit. I've consistently held the stance that the people on Jan 6th were lucky they didn't get shot, and deserve all that's coming to them, much to the chagrin of many.

If you're gonna stick your nose into a conversation, get the facts straight before you start tossing out accusations.

 

[Deleted member 577981]

It seems like your sole opposition is that he's someone with these beliefs and who expresses them while being on the left and aligned with the left here. You NEVER challenge anyone on the right or aligned with the right here like this. People are messy and complicated and often have a mish-mash of beliefs from across the spectrum that can sometimes be contradictory in how they intersect with each other. And this is forced in the two-party system.

There's not a major/viable party that is socially conservative and fiscally liberal. So people like @gremins have to choose what they want to prioritize. He chooses to prioritize his social democratic views on economics and healthcare rather than his socially conservative views. I think he also realizes that the economic policies of the Republicans are not conducive to being pro-family. They necessitate that women work outside the home. They don't encourage women to have children and stay within the home because they won't receive support.

this is pretty accurate and in addition i mostly dont see the governments role as one of enforcing morality in general. im not sure where the line is for me but i dont look to the government to enforce my views on morality generally speaking. and i dont have a part of me that wants everyone to think like i do or live like i do. i was born and raised in a society that has a secular element to it and i care about those people and think they have the right to live according to their own beliefs within reason.

frankly dont feel i have the wisdom to know what all of society should be like, what our end is in god, and what the stages of development are for us all to get there. the moral bottom lines for me are that i think all people should have access to free at the point of service health care, i think the gov should represent people more than corporations, i think there ought to be a minimum wage that can provide a basic but dignified life where all basic needs are met and i think education should be available and free to everyone including trade schools but especially should be free for the poor.

there are all kinds of moral positions that ive come to through christianity that i am certain make for a better life for all people in ways that are impossible to see until you grow into them and i dont mind discussing that with people here and in regular life but i dont have any interest in forcing the country to live that same way through legislation.

i think christian nationalism is a dangerous movement in the states filled with immature mean self righteous people who are potentially violent as a group. i want nothing to do with christian nationalism in the states. im not sure as a group these people would know where and when to stop in trying to root out other peoples sins. i think their blindness and projections would be forever placing their own collective sins and personal sins on the shoulders of the "other" and it could be very ugly as they try to root out their own sins in the wrong place by forcing the "other" to live up to moral requirements they themselves cannot.... this could be really ugly i think.

i think the christian right in this country is accurately represented by
marjorie taylor greene. i think she would gladly put you or i in prison for watching porn while having illicit sex with her new trainer at the gym for instance.

 

[Hollywood Jack]

See, the problem is, you're full of shit and are just emotionally waving pom poms here, because he's on your "team". I have clashed with people on the the right on an issue like guns quite a bit. I've consistently held the stance that the people on Jan 6th were lucky they didn't get shot, and deserve all that's coming to them, much to the chagrin of many.

If you're gonna stick your nose into a conversation, get the facts straight before you start tossing out accusations.

EVERY right winger in this thread expresses the same sentiments or harsher relative to @gremins. Yet you single him out. Like he's not allowed to have those views while being on the left. But if he aligns with the right, then you'd leave him alone. Because then he's on your team. Just something I clearly observed.

I didn't claim that you've never disagreed with right wingers about anything. I'll give you credit for your January 6th stance. And I was also consistent on police force there as I support police using deadly force when necessary across the board. Some right winger in that thread tried to claim I was a hypocrite on that issue and I made him look stupid when I dug up old posts that confirmed how consistent I'd been on the issue.

I'm not full of shit at all on this and you seem to be taking this much more personally and as a personal attack than it was intended. It's just an observation I made. There's nothing emotional at all on my end. With all due respect, I think you may be projecting on that part. I think I've given you plenty of credit for being one of the more intelligent right wingers here, it's not like I've got some type of special animus towards you.

 

[Hollywood Jack]

this is pretty accurate and in addition i mostly dont see the governments role as one of enforcing morality in general. im not sure where the line is for me but i dont look to the government to enforce my views on morality generally speaking. and i dont have a part of me that wants everyone to think like i do or live like i do. i was born and raised in a society that has a secular element to it and i care about those people and think they have the right to live according to their own beliefs within reason.

frankly dont feel i have the wisdom to know what all of society should be like, what our end is in god, and what the stages of development are for us all to get there. the moral bottom lines for me are that i think all people should have access to free at the point of service health care, i think the gov should represent people more than corporations, i think there ought to be a minimum wage that can provide a basic but dignified life where all basic needs are met and i think education should be available and free to everyone including trade schools but especially should be free for the poor.

there are all kinds of moral positions that ive come to through christianity that i am certain make for a better life for all people in ways that are impossible to see until you grow into them and i dont mind discussing that with people here and in regular life but i dont have any interest in forcing the country to live that same way through legislation.

i think christian nationalism is a dangerous movement in the states filled with immature mean self righteous people who are potentially violent as a group. i want nothing to do with christian nationalism in the states. im not sure as a group these people would know where and when to stop in trying to root out other peoples sins. i think their blindness and projections would be forever placing their own collective sins and personal sins on the shoulders of the "other" and it could be very ugly as they try to root out their own sins in the wrong place by forcing the "other" to live up to moral requirements they themselves cannot.... this could be really ugly i think.

i think the christian right in this country is accurately represented by
marjorie taylor greene. i think she would gladly put you or i in prison for watching porn while having illicit sex with her new trainer at the gym for instance.

Well stated. The Christian right conveniently ignores Christianity's left-wing views on economics and the assertion that it's essentially impossible for a wealthy person to make it to Heaven (the exact verbiage is something about it being easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle). They're just as much sinners for having heterosexual sex out of wedlock and consuming hetero porn as LGBT+ people are for the things they do. They need to learn some humility and perspective. I'm happy to have unity with the religious left who prioritize the most important issues over the feeling of being moral because of supporting a party that grandstands on moral issues, but actually isn't all that moral, which is what the cafeteria Christian right does.

 

[Deleted member 577981]

Well stated. The Christian right conveniently ignores Christianity's left-wing views on economics and the assertion that it's essentially impossible for a wealthy person to make it to Heaven (the exact verbiage is something about it being easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle). They're just as much sinners for having heterosexual sex out of wedlock and consuming hetero porn as LGBT+ people are for the things they do. They need to learn some humility and perspective. I'm happy to have unity with the religious left who prioritize the most important issues over the feeling of being moral because of supporting a party that grandstands on moral issues, but actually isn't all that moral, which is what the cafeteria Christian right does.

yeah the camel and the eye of the needle and this gem right from jesus own heart and mind. i LOVE this one. imagine him saying this to rich people..... not a good way to get popular i would think!

19 “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20 At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21 and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.

22 “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’

25 “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’

27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’

29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’

30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’

31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”

 

[Bargey]

Your guess is wrong. I don’t condone or support (and I needed to google) minor attracted person.

Do you know the Federal Age of Consent is 16? That is also age of consent in the majority of red states. So, to review, you were very upset at children, their licensed doctors and families choosing to have this surgery at a University medical facility. You thought it was so bad you equated it to minors consenting to sex and you had to make a false accusation against me. You now appear to have just learned that in a state like GA a 40 year old and minor may have sex, totally legally. Let’s hear your outrage. Are you going to accuse the GA Governor and Republican Legislature of being “minor attracted persons?”

Is your goal here to protect children or call out the libs?

So my post got deleted and you decided to play victim. So to you and whatever clown deleted my post for “accusation of philia”, saying someone is ok with the “minor attraction movement”, is not the same as saying that poster wants to have sex with children. So I’m not sure if you had a whine to the mod or a busybody mod decided to take it down on their own without prompting, but if you start talking about an issue be prepared to defend your point of view. Your rant in other respects has absolutely zero to do with the topic. 16 year olds are getting married all over the globe. I don’t really like it, I think the right minimum age is 18 but whatevs. Start another thread if that’s something that bothers you. It would be extremely strange if it did.

 

[HereticBD]

EVERY right winger in this thread expresses the same sentiments or harsher relative to @gremins. Yet you single him out. Like he's not allowed to have those views while being on the left. But if he aligns with the right, then you'd leave him alone.

Because those opinions aren't contradictory in that sphere. Why would I call out a right winger for having consistent right wing views? There's nothing odd about it. It would be contradictory if they held an extreme leftist view on these issues, which I would definitely chime in on if I happened to catch it, because it just wouldn't gel and I'd be curious at how they think they can balance being very right wing, while championing a very left wing stance on a social issue such as this, which really doesn't have much wiggle room. Same thing with @gremins. I'm not criticizing his views on this. I'm criticizing the contradiction of his professed leftism.

I just find it odd how he's arguing that he's trying to convey compassion to a group of people, while saying he thinks they are living "wrong" lives, and need to be "cured" or "saved" or whatever. It doesn't compute. That's not a compassionate stance to the people he's talking about, and I'm not sure if he can accept that. Whenever I am at odds with him, it's usually about inconsistencies like these. For instance, he also claims to abhor conspiracy theories and has no problem calling the people who indulge in them complete morons when it's being related to the right, but yet, you'll find him talking like Cletus from the trailer park in other threads, talking about being visited by aliens n' shit. It doesn't add up, and makes him a bit of a hypocrite.

I didn't claim that you've never disagreed with right wingers about anything.

You said "You NEVER challenge anyone on the right, or aligned with the right like this". Full stop. That is false. I'm not exactly shy about voicing my opinions to anyone. Naturally, I'm not going to butt heads with the right a whole lot, but it happens from time to time.

 

[Hollywood Jack]

Because those opinions aren't contradictory in that sphere. Why would I call out a right winger for having consistent right wing views? There's nothing odd about it. It would be contradictory if they held an extreme leftist view on these issues, which I would definitely chime in on if I happened to catch it, because it just wouldn't gel and I'd be curious at how they think they can balance being very right wing, while championing a very left wing stance on a social issue such as this, which really doesn't have much wiggle room. Same thing with @gremins. I'm not criticizing his views on this. I'm criticizing the contradiction of his professed leftism.

I just find it odd how he's arguing that he's trying to convey compassion to a group of people, while saying he thinks they are living "wrong" lives, and need to be "cured" or "saved" or whatever. It doesn't compute. That's not a compassionate stance to the people he's talking about, and I'm not sure if he can accept that. Whenever I am at odds with him, it's usually about inconsistencies like these. For instance, he also claims to abhor conspiracy theories and has no problem calling the people who indulge in them complete morons when it's being related to the right, but yet, you'll find him talking like Cletus from the trailer park in other threads, talking about being visited by aliens n' shit. It doesn't add up, and makes him a bit of a hypocrite.



You said "You NEVER challenge anyone on the right, or aligned with the right like this". Full stop. That is false. I'm not exactly shy about voicing my opinions to anyone. Naturally, I'm not going to butt heads with the right a whole lot, but it happens from time to time.

I could have/should have worded that better to begin with. I think @gremins' views are completely in accordance with Christian views across the board. Much more so than the Christian right. There's a reason why the Catholic Church agrees with the left on EVERYTHING except for legalized abortion and same-sex marriage. I fundamentally disagree with you when you insinuate that Christian views are synonymous with the Christian right. That's a recent development which many people think is aberrant. Historically Christians believed in rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's and mainly kept out of politics. There's also a long tradition of Christian democracy, and that makes up the ruling or main opposition parties in much of Europe. Christian democracy is essentially social democracy mixed with Christian views on social and cultural issues. @gremins is in line with those traditions and @Khabib Khanate also supports them, even though he is Muslim rather than Christian.

 

[Islam Imamate]

EVERY right winger in this thread expresses the same sentiments or harsher relative to @gremins. Yet you single him out. Like he's not allowed to have those views while being on the left. But if he aligns with the right, then you'd leave him alone. Because then he's on your team. Just something I clearly observed.

I didn't claim that you've never disagreed with right wingers about anything. I'll give you credit for your January 6th stance. And I was also consistent on police force there as I support police using deadly force when necessary across the board. Some right winger in that thread tried to claim I was a hypocrite on that issue and I made him look stupid when I dug up old posts that confirmed how consistent I'd been on the issue.

I'm not full of shit at all on this and you seem to be taking this much more personally and as a personal attack than it was intended. It's just an observation I made. There's nothing emotional at all on my end. With all due respect, I think you may be projecting on that part. I think I've given you plenty of credit for being one of the more intelligent right wingers here, it's not like I've got some type of special animus towards you.

I like how our standards are so low with some of these goofs that we pat them on the back for not supporting a flash mob that tried to break into the Capitol to interrupt election proceedings.

I could have/should have worded that better to begin with. I think @gremins' views are completely in accordance with Christian views across the board. Much more so than the Christian right. There's a reason why the Catholic Church agrees with the left on EVERYTHING except for legalized abortion and same-sex marriage. I fundamentally disagree with you when you insinuate that Christian views are synonymous with the Christian right. That's a recent development which many people think is aberrant. Historically Christians believed in rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's and mainly kept out of politics. There's also a long tradition of Christian democracy, and that makes up the ruling or main opposition parties in much of Europe. Christian democracy is essentially social democracy mixed with Christian views on social and cultural issues. @gremins is in line with those traditions and @Khabib Khanate also supports them, even though he is Muslim rather than Christian.

Like always they're arguing in bad faith, is normal for them.

Basically they're annoyed that while @gremins agrees with some general critiques from the right in regards to these issues, gremins also critiques their myopic focus on certain kinds of sins and the negativity of their messaging and their own character flaws. Which is obviously fair but is off script from the partisan hack POV so that can't be tolerated.