Liberal Forum

jerrab » 15 Apr 2023, 10:21 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Apr 2023, 10:21 pm

if it was not major then Christ would not have said it. you have absolutely no authority to declare what was major to Jesus.

What he mentioned the most often was obviously what he considered the most important. 

Xavier_Onassis » 15 Apr 2023, 10:23 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Apr 2023, 10:23 pm

The commandment given to Adam and Eve was "be fruitful and multiply".  Jesus never married and did not multiply.
The Jewish religion was pretty strict about the need for all people to marry.

Did I say that Jesus said men could marry men? No, I did not.
Jesus did say that everyone should love one another.
Again. no one appointed you to tell who could call themselves a Christian.

hmmmm  this was Jesus saying it in matthew 19.

matthew 19

4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

Xavier_Onassis » 15 Apr 2023, 10:25 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Apr 2023, 10:25 pm

What he mentioned the most often was obviously what he considered the most important.

and He mentioned it,

Xavier_Onassis » 15 Apr 2023, 10:23 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Apr 2023, 10:23 pm

The commandment given to Adam and Eve was "be fruitful and multiply".  Jesus never married and did not multiply.
The Jewish religion was pretty strict about the need for all people to marry.

Did I say that Jesus said men could marry men? No, I did not.
Jesus did say that everyone should love one another.
Again. no one appointed you to tell who could call themselves a Christian.

when Jesus said to love each other he did not mean every one should have sex together.

jerrab » 15 Apr 2023, 10:26 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Apr 2023, 10:26 pm

and He mentioned it,

once.
Jesus cruised around with 12 other dudes who also were not being fruitful or multiplying.

Xavier_Onassis » 15 Apr 2023, 10:33 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Apr 2023, 10:33 pm

once.
Jesus cruised around with 12 other dudes who also were not being fruitful or multiplying.

,
they were not having sex. i know you gays love to say that.

Xavier_Onassis » 15 Apr 2023, 10:33 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Apr 2023, 10:33 pm

once.
Jesus cruised around with 12 other dudes who also were not being fruitful or multiplying.

oops once.  as opposed to never,

Xavier_Onassis » 15 Apr 2023, 10:33 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Apr 2023, 10:33 pm

once.
Jesus cruised around with 12 other dudes who also were not being fruitful or multiplying.

are you happy now? you have turned the democrat party into the demoncrat party.
 

OdeToJoy » 15 Apr 2023, 6:02 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Apr 2023, 6:02 pm

No, I don't deal with What If's.

Actually, you do. We all do. There are laws written to cover general cases. For instance, let's take laws against discrimination. The law doesn't pick and choose which races or religions we cannot discriminate against. It says that companies cannot discriminate against one's race or religion, regardless of what it is. Thus, regardless of the circumstance, the law applies. Be it a 'what of' or not. 

That's the point. Consistency. You are picking and choosing what circumstances should be addressed. Then hiding behind the copout of "I don't deal with what ifs." 

Vegas » 16 Apr 2023, 12:23 am » wrote: ↑

16 Apr 2023, 12:23 am

Actually, you do. We all do. There are laws written to cover general cases. For instance, let's take laws against discrimination. The law doesn't pick and choose which races or religions we cannot discriminate against. It says that companies cannot discriminate against one's race or religion, regardless of what it is. Thus, regardless of the circumstance, the law applies. Be it a 'what of' or not. 

That's the point. Consistency. You are picking and choosing what circumstances should be addressed. Then hiding behind the copout of "I don't deal with what ifs."

Nope, the thread is about Library Story Time.  Anybody who wants to rent a library room and read to kids, then the parents make the judgement.

I, personally, would not choose to take my great grandchildren to see Kirk Cameron, because I disagree with everything he espouses, but a lot of people like him.  And I certainly would never interfere with that.  Just like I don't interfere with whatever other people are deciding about their children.

OdeToJoy » 15 Apr 2023, 11:45 am » wrote: ↑

15 Apr 2023, 11:45 am

I fully support social programs that will allow women to keep and raise their babies:  Expanded Medicaid, Universal Health Care, WIC, universal preschool at 2-3 years old, daycare, Foodstamps, nutrition programs,  banning for profit companies from school lunch programs, job training programs for new moms, women receiving government stipend (the French do this) for staying home with young children, expanded Section 8 housing vouchers, county health nurses that monitor families after going home, drug, alcohol, and mental health programs, etc.

Most women would choose to have their babies if they had the social programs that would support and allow them to afford to keep their babies.

The anti-abortion groups are the same people who vote against all the social programs that allow women to support their children.

You love "social programs" so much, why don't YOU bring in a couple of these pregnant women, give them ALL of this you offer needs to be done, and do it from the grace of your pocketbook?? But NOPE, you want ME and countless others to PAY FOR YOUR IDEAS!! Since "government" is the know all, tell all, do all in your life!!

RATHER than take RESPONSIBILITY for your ACTIONS, raising your kids, and going through life PRODUCTIVE instead of DEPENDENT, you demand none of that!! DEPENDENCY IS YOUR ONLY WAY, right ARSEKISS??
 

Beekeeper » 15 Apr 2023, 7:34 am » wrote: ↑

15 Apr 2023, 7:34 am

Is that why you LWNJs are trying to DESTROY GOD?? Because you are PHOBIC to Him??

Or is it that He holds you ACCOUNTABLE for your SEXUAL PERVERSIONS with little kids?? Now you can't be having none of that now can you??

Your god is so easily destroyed. He ain’t much of a god. 

Your god enjoys sexual perversion with young children. He once impregnated a 13 year old girl, remember that?

Here’s an excellent example of what your god teaches;

https://m.youtube.com/shorts/HOvmMW6bKvA


 

Vegas » 14 Apr 2023, 11:00 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Apr 2023, 11:00 pm

Scottsmon evaded this question. I can safely assume the rest of the progressives will also. God forbid we should have any honesty from any of you. Nonetheless, though I will only receive deflections, I will enjoy watching you all squirm anyway. 

You guys frequently make the point that parents are always at the drag queen book readings. So, nothing happens there. We are all making a mountain out of a mole hill, etc...etc...

Question: Why do the parents need to be there if there is nothing to worry about? Book readings do not require parental permission or their presence. Teachers have been doing it for centuries.

You are either childless or a terrible parent. 

Do you always leave your young children unattended? Or just when it is inconvenient for you?
 

Pastafarian » 16 Apr 2023, 6:09 am » wrote: ↑

16 Apr 2023, 6:09 am

Your god is so easily destroyed. He ain’t much of a god. 

Your god enjoys sexual perversion with young children. He once impregnated a 13 year old girl, remember that?

Here’s an excellent example of what your god teaches;

https://m.youtube.com/shorts/HOvmMW6bKvA

Then you feel FREE to "destroy" GOD all you want because YOU are the one who pays THAT price when YOUR time comes to answer for your SINS IN LIFE!! And this is a HUGE ONE, dolt!! And God never "impregnated" any 13 year old, *******!! The Scriptures NEVER stated her AGE. Nowhere. But you and your NAZI ILK love to "speculate" and call if "Fact". Kneegrow NAZIS love that ****!

Oh, and "marriage' of a 12 year old is a HUMAN concept, not one from GOD. But you believe that ANY 12 year old MUST DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES if they want to be a boy or a girl and have 100% CONTROL OVER THAT and any SURGERY or MEDS they get, which is FAR MORE LIFE ALTERING than a marriage at that age!!! And the lawmaker is 100% CORRECT in that the PARENTS MUST BE INVOLVED IN ALL DECISIONS OF A MINOR CHILD, yet YOUR BELIEF is that they are capable of ANY DECISION that alters their GENDER without any parental involvement??

You are ONE MASSIVELY CONFUSED AND MORONIC POS there, GROOMER!!!

OdeToJoy » 15 Apr 2023, 6:02 am » wrote: ↑

15 Apr 2023, 6:02 am

 Parents are always at the Kirk Cameron's book readings. So, nothing happens there. We are all making a mountain out of a mole hill, etc...etc...

Question: Why do the parents need to be there if there is nothing to worry about? Book readings do not require parental permission or their presence. Teachers have been doing it for centuries.

I'm seeing a lot of parents at Kirk Cameron's book reading.  Every child is accompanied by an adult.  Should they be worried about the content?  Do the children need to be protected from Kirk Cameron?

comparing Kirk Cameron to a freak show? 
 

OdeToJoy » 15 Apr 2023, 6:17 am » wrote: ↑

15 Apr 2023, 6:17 am

Yes, it did.  Responsible parents don't drop off their children anywhere.  Pre schoolers have their parents with them whether it is a book reading, birthday party, walking to school, or a sporting event.

When my young children went to the weekly children's movie at the library, I was standing at the back of the room with the rest of the parents.  This was back in the 70's.  I don't think attitudes have changed since then.

The question was why parents attend book readings?  I pointed out that parents, of young children, attend all events with their children.

so you're in your 90's?

Sumela » 15 Apr 2023, 8:00 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Apr 2023, 8:00 pm

                       

IMO, if she's just there to read books in a proper manner, IE, not dressed like a stripper and her profession (stripper or porn star) is never brought up, I wouldn't have a problem with that...
 
 

Sumela » 15 Apr 2023, 8:34 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Apr 2023, 8:34 pm

Here is OdeToTrannies
fisting himself

 

jerrab » 15 Apr 2023, 10:15 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Apr 2023, 10:15 pm

he said a man  is  to marry a woman. and if a man is to marry it should be a  woman.  you are not an authority to  say just because Jesus did not marry then  men can marry men. that is the worst logic I ever heard.

not to fret, cubano doesn't even know what the "Commandments" are...
 
 

Xavier_Onassis » 15 Apr 2023, 10:23 pm » wrote: ↑

15 Apr 2023, 10:23 pm

The commandment given to Adam and Eve was "be fruitful and multiply".  Jesus never married and did not multiply.
The Jewish religion was pretty strict about the need for all people to marry.

Did I say that Jesus said men could marry men? No, I did not.
Jesus did say that everyone should love one another.
Again. no one appointed you to tell who could call themselves a Christian.

Again cubano, not a "Commandment"...