Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine are you having fun al? are you having van al? dei must go gaolang > your fav is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? life goal sister harem real madrid reloaded is innocent tax is the best thing ever happened to us trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you watch for haters weebs discussing politics lmao worst thread ever
Your agenda is the invisibilisation of religions and belief systems that you don't like or don't know about and your newfound focus on modern democracy with "the middle ages" as the only example of the vast number of time periods and regional developments shows your ignorance.
It's ok to not know something but please don't go around and act like things you never heard of don't exist.
Those sex shows are about as gross and inappropriate as the grooming and actual abuse you can find among religious authorities.
It's ok to not know something but please don't go around and act like things you never heard of don't exist.
Those sex shows are about as gross and inappropriate as the grooming and actual abuse you can find among religious authorities.
This is a slipping slope. And actually a very loaded argument.
If by not being homophobic or transphobic you mean accepting that someone can be homossexual or suffer from gender dysphoria, frankly, I never met many moderate Christians that had a issue. It's not like your sexual preferences are written on your face. What we have a issue is the things that are asked of us after we take this step.
Nowadays, as a example, some activists claim that is homophobic to deny marriage for those types while ignoring that the Holy book consider sodomy a sin. This is a move that many think that weakens the religion because trying to appease those types is just shooting your own foot. They want to spite on our traditions just to make a point that we are close minded.
The point is that this argument of ''not be homophobic or transphobic'' is nowadays used to conceal some really disturbing things. You have to be specific about what you actually want.
If by not being homophobic or transphobic you mean accepting that someone can be homossexual or suffer from gender dysphoria, frankly, I never met many moderate Christians that had a issue. It's not like your sexual preferences are written on your face. What we have a issue is the things that are asked of us after we take this step.
Nowadays, as a example, some activists claim that is homophobic to deny marriage for those types while ignoring that the Holy book consider sodomy a sin. This is a move that many think that weakens the religion because trying to appease those types is just shooting your own foot. They want to spite on our traditions just to make a point that we are close minded.
The point is that this argument of ''not be homophobic or transphobic'' is nowadays used to conceal some really disturbing things. You have to be specific about what you actually want.
Islam is roughly 500 years younger than Christianity. Give them time. It's like expecting Christians from the 1500 to be inclusive.
And some groups in society have been alienated for ages, what's your problem with these changes?
We should not pick a side. More numbers on each side only fuel the conflict and carry it to other countries.
You guys keep acting like Christianity is an inseperable part of European or Western identity
And some groups in society have been alienated for ages, what's your problem with these changes?
We should not pick a side. More numbers on each side only fuel the conflict and carry it to other countries.
You guys keep acting like Christianity is an inseperable part of European or Western identity
Ok. Give a example of a religion that is not autocratic in nature. Go ahead.
Again, you should read the reply chain. You was the one that replied to me and directly quoted a argument about conclaves in medieval Catholic churchs and claimed that they weren't elected by the majority and then chimped out when I pointed out that this was not something you would find in older religions. At least try to be honest.
Sure, point a organized religion that is not autocratic in nature.
Yes. And all those that allow this to happen should be killed like the animals they are just as the other abominations that try to find excuses by claiming that others do worse.
Again, you should read the reply chain. You was the one that replied to me and directly quoted a argument about conclaves in medieval Catholic churchs and claimed that they weren't elected by the majority and then chimped out when I pointed out that this was not something you would find in older religions. At least try to be honest.
Sure, point a organized religion that is not autocratic in nature.
Yes. And all those that allow this to happen should be killed like the animals they are just as the other abominations that try to find excuses by claiming that others do worse.
If you mean who to side with between palestine and israel, then no it's not tough at all. We literally have the early leaders of zionism admitting that they stole the land
If you mean who to side with between Hamas and IDF, it is actually getting easier. Videos are resurfacing online exposing the disgusting traits of the IDF
Etc.
Westerns will literally label any resistance fighters as terrorists whether or not they are actually terrorists. Colonial mindset
If you mean who to side with between Hamas and IDF, it is actually getting easier. Videos are resurfacing online exposing the disgusting traits of the IDF
Etc.
Westerns will literally label any resistance fighters as terrorists whether or not they are actually terrorists. Colonial mindset
The issue really lies in the fact that people believe the scripture should be up for dispute. Let's discount for a moment whether we believe OR don't believe in the holy word. The important thing is that some people do. They should not be forced to subvert their beliefs for the beliefs of others through legislation.
Furthermore, you are correct - homophobic/transphobic rhetoric is inherently loaded. It's an accusation. Most moderates are NOT like this, but even then, what we think they mean is not what they mean. What they actually mean is: If you do not agree 100% with everything I conscribe to, you are a bigot.
That's essentially elevating their moral values above your own.
I am accused very frequently of being a transphobe, though I'd argue I have done more for trans individuals than the majority of these activists. I have helped them get employment, housing and shelter. I care for these people, even if I think these days it's a maladaptive coping strategy to modernity.
Well, this comment was unrelated to the previous, but to expound for you - the values of wanting to uphold your own culture. That's what the Jews also want. And they will war for it. So many groups across history has fought for cultural supremacy.
Your argument about forcing values falls flat when many immigrants protested on British streets during one of their most sacred days for a war that has nothing to do with the UK. Talk about forcing your values and beliefs on people of different cultures much...
Furthermore, you are correct - homophobic/transphobic rhetoric is inherently loaded. It's an accusation. Most moderates are NOT like this, but even then, what we think they mean is not what they mean. What they actually mean is: If you do not agree 100% with everything I conscribe to, you are a bigot.
That's essentially elevating their moral values above your own.
I am accused very frequently of being a transphobe, though I'd argue I have done more for trans individuals than the majority of these activists. I have helped them get employment, housing and shelter. I care for these people, even if I think these days it's a maladaptive coping strategy to modernity.
Well, this comment was unrelated to the previous, but to expound for you - the values of wanting to uphold your own culture. That's what the Jews also want. And they will war for it. So many groups across history has fought for cultural supremacy.
Your argument about forcing values falls flat when many immigrants protested on British streets during one of their most sacred days for a war that has nothing to do with the UK. Talk about forcing your values and beliefs on people of different cultures much...
But we're in the year 2023 (soon to be 2024) though.
Major changes in society (and technology) happen much more quickly and surprisingly, they even wane and rise back up again quicker. It didn't take too long for Western Europe (especially Sweden) to take in enough refugees such that those refugees ended up becoming a noticeable and signficant part of their population.
Major changes in society (and technology) happen much more quickly and surprisingly, they even wane and rise back up again quicker. It didn't take too long for Western Europe (especially Sweden) to take in enough refugees such that those refugees ended up becoming a noticeable and signficant part of their population.
"If I hear one more person use religion as a reason to not give rights to people probably I'm gonna fucking explode.
People using their own personal ideologies as an excuse to implement legislation over other people's lives, are simply just not ok with the fact that they can't control everything around them"
W video
People using their own personal ideologies as an excuse to implement legislation over other people's lives, are simply just not ok with the fact that they can't control everything around them"
W video
Alright, allow me to offer a counter-point. How is 'marriage' a right? They had Civil Unions before this. Marriage is a holy act. It was a biblical practice. If those practices are now being forced to change for a group outside of the religion, then isn't that the morally bankrupt element we should be talking about?
Homosexuality was not illegal. Transsexualism was not illegal. Unions between Homosexuals was allowed - just not marriage, which as I stated before, was a BIBLICAL practice. Where is the legislative control here?
It's like me demanding I should be allowed to convert to Judaism without undergoing the stringent processes of converting simply because I want to. No questions asked.
But why should anyone be allowed to join a club they don't align with? It's like me saying I deserve to be in a LGBT group and they all have to accept me because otherwise they're bigots who can't accept detransitioners who don't believe in the common trans narratives. Also, now they must change their rules to accommodate me.
Why must Christians not only accept people into their groups but change to the incoming individuals values? They shouldn't.
Homosexuality was not illegal. Transsexualism was not illegal. Unions between Homosexuals was allowed - just not marriage, which as I stated before, was a BIBLICAL practice. Where is the legislative control here?
It's like me demanding I should be allowed to convert to Judaism without undergoing the stringent processes of converting simply because I want to. No questions asked.
But why should anyone be allowed to join a club they don't align with? It's like me saying I deserve to be in a LGBT group and they all have to accept me because otherwise they're bigots who can't accept detransitioners who don't believe in the common trans narratives. Also, now they must change their rules to accommodate me.
Why must Christians not only accept people into their groups but change to the incoming individuals values? They shouldn't.
Nope, not what I did. I said that as a devout follower who accepts that representatives decide on what is appropriate and what is not, you shouldn't complain about the decisions your representatives make.
You do know about the ex-Pope's friendships with these "animals", or don't you? And you can look up things by yourself, I'm not going to waste my time on a guy who is deeply stuck in his personal religious agenda.
This.
Look up"operation Geronimo" to get a better understanding of why and how the West loves to use the word terrorism as a buzzword.
You do know about the ex-Pope's friendships with these "animals", or don't you? And you can look up things by yourself, I'm not going to waste my time on a guy who is deeply stuck in his personal religious agenda.
This.
Look up"operation Geronimo" to get a better understanding of why and how the West loves to use the word terrorism as a buzzword.
An opposing country whose military is pissed off enough that they'd air bomb a hospital while forcibly occupying Palestine land wouldn't be my first choice to seek asylum in.
Any Palestinian refugee that would even dare to take asylum in Israel would have mobs of Jews trying to kill them or they'd get sent to some kind of internment camp.
A damning fate for any person to end up in.
Any Palestinian refugee that would even dare to take asylum in Israel would have mobs of Jews trying to kill them or they'd get sent to some kind of internment camp.
A damning fate for any person to end up in.
They wouldn't take them in anyway
That's why they're doing their best to kill off as many civilians as possible - less refugees to take in by the West
And then the same Western countries that finance every bomb that hits Gaza will wonder why there are so many refugees seeking asylum in their countries.
The root cause of the whole issue is the insistance on an ethnostate in this day and age. That's some B.C. type of stuff
That's why they're doing their best to kill off as many civilians as possible - less refugees to take in by the West
And then the same Western countries that finance every bomb that hits Gaza will wonder why there are so many refugees seeking asylum in their countries.
The root cause of the whole issue is the insistance on an ethnostate in this day and age. That's some B.C. type of stuff
This is your post that started the reply chain:
As show above this was not the original post but your attempt to save your hide by claiming that Catholics should follow the Pope as if his words were Sharia law. You even was dishonest and cut part of my argument where I directly stated that changes not supported by the followers were removed.
This does not change anything about what I said. It's not a gotcha: abominations that support that sort of thing are not humans and should be eliminated for the good of people just as the people that support other abominations and try to gaslight it.
If you are in doubt, just reread it.
Translation: I have to lie and gaslight because I have no argument.
As show above this was not the original post but your attempt to save your hide by claiming that Catholics should follow the Pope as if his words were Sharia law. You even was dishonest and cut part of my argument where I directly stated that changes not supported by the followers were removed.
This does not change anything about what I said. It's not a gotcha: abominations that support that sort of thing are not humans and should be eliminated for the good of people just as the people that support other abominations and try to gaslight it.
If you are in doubt, just reread it.
Translation: I have to lie and gaslight because I have no argument.
